Prepared by:

Blaise Hodges, Senior Land Surveyor, Cognition Land and Water, blaise.hodges@cognitionltd.com

Andy O’Dea, Technical Director, Cognition Land and Water, andy.odea@cognitionltd.com

Drones (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles – UAVs) are quickly becoming one of the most useful tools on a typical construction site, offering rapid data collection for topographical surveys or site 4D imagery.  Drone arial footage and 4D model mock-ups allow quick access to valuable site data and visual information.  Whether it’s for initial site pricing strategies, refining pre-design processes or recording work progress, our investment in drone technology is allowing our teams to work safer and more efficiently, whilst delivering tangible benefits for our clients.

As our drone uses GPS and obstacle avoidance systems, it can be programmed and manoeuvred accurately to precise locations on site and follow pre-determined flight paths.  This creates an extremely valuable and multi-faceted tool that can be used in a variety of situations. Such tools and facilities have had a big impact on our work, primarily in the management of earthworks projects.  Outlined below are a number of ways in which the application of drone technology and surveying techniques have delivered significant benefits, efficiencies and improvements in data capture and delivery on our projects.

Faster and more accurate site surveys

For most surveyors/engineers, there are two simple reasons for using drones for earthworks – speed and accuracy.  With conventional land-based surveying techniques, it can take many hours to walk the site and measure aggregates and stockpiles.  Subsequently, it often takes several days to process the data and deliver the required volumetric analysis or drawings.  Drone surveys allow all of this work to be done in a fraction of the time.

As an example, our Senior Land Surveyor recently carried out a drone survey of a large construction site in less than 20 minutes to collect data on earthworks stockpiles.  It was not possible to carry out the survey with traditional ground-based systems due to soft and overgrown ground conditions.  The post-survey processing took a matter of hours, despite handling thousands rather than scores of surveyed points across the site surfaces.  In addition to the very significant time saving, the far greater number of survey points provides scope for many more outputs such as an orthomosaic point cloud and a 4D digital terrain model (DTM) of the site.

Using proprietary Pix4D software, access to the survey model can be provided to the client and project team via a simple web link.  This then allows the whole project team to inspect, manipulate and interrogate the model as well as access to high resolution images, on screen visuals and tools to measure terrain dimensions, etc.  Stockpile volumes can be calculated, distances and areas measured, and OS co-ordinates given – all with a few mouse clicks.  It is a truly powerful data and imagery presentation system that is accessible to all.

Performing cut-and-fill volumetric analysis

We often utilise traditional GPS surveying in tandem with drone surveys to extract the best of both approaches.  Traditional ground-based surveying is used for key site features such as bottom of banks, edges showing changes of surfaces and heights. The drone data collection is then carried out on a grid throughout remaining areas, eliminating the risks associated with climbing stockpiles and providing truly accurate data.

Drones have dramatically reduced the manual work needed to perform a cut-and-fill volumetric analysis following the site survey.  Once the aerial data is collected, drone software platforms like Pix4D enables cloud processing and final export into Autodesk file formats like a DXF or a point cloud file that can be used in Civil 3D or LSS design software.

This has allowed us to streamline our cut-and-fill workflow, speeding up the process significantly.  We have estimated that we can now carry out volumetric analysis and cut and fill calculations in about one-third the time it took us previously.  This provides cost savings to our clients and greater time to interrogate the output of the analysis and formulate innovative and novel solutions to the ground engineering problems presented to us.

Verifying work and managing conflicts

During the course of an earthworks project, it is vital to regularly monitor progress, especially at key milestones, to ensure the works are progressing to programme.  Drone surveys have become an invaluable tool in this monitoring and verification process.

We fly our sites as often as is required by the project to satisfactorily record progress.  We then process the images into an orthomosaic, and hence into an elevation map that can be compared to the initial site plans as the project progresses.  This allows for clear and robust recording and monitoring at important phases of the project.  Importantly, this information enables more focused quality control as well as providing site managers with detailed information on progress to allow closer and more accurate management of resources and expenditure.  Such interim surveys also provide robust data for interim works measurement and payment applications.

Site inspections and tender support

We will often use drone surveys in support of our tender and estimating work.  A quick drone survey carried out at the tender stage can provide invaluable information to both the client and contractor on the site conditions, building (current and former) footprints, topography, site restrictions, earthworks volumes, building condition, etc.

Drones can capture images and videos, allowing for detailed mapping and easy access to inspect and prepare volumetric data for cut and fill calculations.  Gathering information through a single drone survey allows for a far better understanding of the key project risks, makes the costings on a project more accurate and saves significant time in the tender stage by avoiding multiple site visits.

The speed at which we can now perform quite complex and detailed imaging, topographic and volumetric surveys means that we will often provide our initial drone survey as a free service to our clients at the tender stage, giving us a clear advantage and differentiator against our competition.

Improved worker safety

In the field, surveyors and engineers spend hours on the ground collecting data or overseeing site-based work.  This is not only time-consuming but can be deemed as a risky activity.  Often, site rules or risk assessments will not allow personnel to access stockpiles or move freely around the site due to plant movement and other site risks.  Traversing steep slopes that are uneven and potentially unstable is an activity fraught with dangers.  This can all be avoided by the use of a drone survey.  Site engineers and personnel can inspect and quantify the site, earthworks, slopes and stockpiles from a safe distance avoiding all associated trip and fall hazards.

To assist with communicating key site risks to the workforce, a drone aerial photography survey will allow for a good overall representation of the site and help provide powerful visual information to site managers for use in site inductions or toolbox talks.  Drone surveys may even be used to conduct safety inspections or audits at large sites and this is something that we are looking to introduce shortly.

A powerful tool

We hope that the examples provided above give a flavour for the powerful benefits that drone surveys have made at our company and how investment in this technology has revolutionised the way in which we inspect, manage, record and report the work we do.  It is fair to say that it have been a game-changer for Cognition Land and Water and we would be happy to share our experiences with you further if that would be helpful.

Cognition Land and Water is a specialist ground engineering and contamination remediation contractor with the capability to deliver all ground-related aspects of construction projects from site investigations, remediation, earthworks and ground engineering, through to civil engineering and concrete-framed structures.

Article contributed by:

Jo Wilding, Associate Technical Director, RSK (SoBRA Executive Committee)

Simon Cole,  Technical Practice Lead, AECOM (SoBRA Chair)

Feedback to info@sobra.org.uk

Laboratory reporting of asbestos in soil is a key data component of quantitative risk assessment for human health, and for the risk-based management of asbestos in soils. Asbestos in soil poses a hazard to human health when it becomes airborne, and the inhaled fibres can result in diseases including mesothelioma and lung cancer. Therefore the relationship between asbestos in soil and the resulting fibre concentration in air is a fundamental, but complex, element of human health risk assessment. In the UK, there is no current consensus on which air quality guidelines should be used to assess potential risks to human health from exposure to asbestos in soils once airborne. This in turn means that there is no UK regulatory or industry-agreed good practice for the assessment of risks from asbestos in soils, which are being – or could be – released to air and subsequently inhaled. Key elements to an asbestos risk assessment are (i) asbestos identification and characterisation, (ii) receptor exposure, (iii) an understanding of background exposure and (iv) assessment criteria at an appropriate risk level that distinguish between relative risks from different types and forms of asbestos.

The Society of Brownfield Risk Assessment (SoBRA) has recently published two discussion papers relating to asbestos in soil laboratory analysis and reporting. These were published alongside an update to the discussion paper on guidelines for airborne concentrations of asbestos fibres in ambient air: implications for risk assessment.  All three papers build on the series of SoBRA papers published by the asbestos sub-group in 2015 that looked at sampling protocols, activity-based sampling, conceptual models, and example decision making under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Data mining of laboratory data

SoBRA issued a request to major UK soil laboratories in 2016 to provide SoBRA with anonymised asbestos in soil laboratory data. The distribution of asbestos in soil discussion paper provides a factual presentation of the data shared by five UK laboratories (ALS, DETS, Envirolab, i2, and REC). The data presented in the paper is, naturally, a reflection of the soil samples sent to the testing laboratories rather than a reflection of background concentrations of asbestos in soils in the UK.  The datasets do not distinguish between sample origin – be that a greenfield site or a brownfield site nor do they distinguish between large datasets from one or a small number of sites and small datasets from a larger number of sites.

Typically laboratory testing follows a sequential three stage process akin to the one presented in the Standing Committee of Analysts ‘Blue Book’ method (withdrawn in October 2020; SCA, 2017). However, the data presented in the paper is a result of different laboratory methods or sub-sets of methods and will include analysis undertaken by different methods over time by the same laboratory.  The three stages are:

Stage 1: The determination and identification of presence or absence of asbestos using stereomicroscopy, plus higher magnification polarised light microscopy (PLM) analysis for fine fibres (see HSG 248, HSE, 2005).

Stage 2: The removal of asbestos containing material (ACM) and fibre bundles with identification and gravimetric analysis to determine percentage by weight.

Stage 3: The dispersion and collection of free fibres followed by fibre identification, counting and measurement of fibres to determine percentage by weight.

From a dataset of approximately 175,000 samples, during Stage 1, asbestos was not detected in the majority of samples submitted to the five laboratories. When positively identified the majority of asbestos detected was chrysotile. The majority of reported concentrations of free fibres detected in soils that have undergone Stage 3 analysis following a positive identification at Stage 1 were below the method reporting limit of 0.001% wt/wt. (Note that these samples are typically, but not always, those that have had a positive identification at Stage 1; it is rare for samples with a negative ID at Stage 1 to progress to Stages 2 or 3).

Variability in UK laboratory methods and reporting

There is, however, significant variability in UK laboratory methods for the identification and quantification of asbestos in soil. A SoBRA survey of 10 UK laboratories in 2018 raises questions about the data that is reported and its subsequent applicability for use in human health risk assessment.  The survey was designed to complement a similar survey of UK laboratories undertaken by the AGS and reported in February 2019 (Mitcheson, 2019).  The survey highlighted that laboratories do not follow the same sample preparation and analytical procedures, nor do they report in the same way.  Only 70% of laboratories follow the ‘Blue Book’ method; the method used by the remaining 30% of laboratories was not explored.  Even those who follow the ’Blue Book’ implement that method in different ways that could significantly influence the results reported.

When considering accreditation and proficiency, which is a key element for data quality, all laboratories surveyed participated in the HSL Proficiency Testing Scheme Asbestos in Soil Scheme (AISS) but only 70% of the laboratories responded that they held UKAS accreditation for Stage 1 identification of asbestos.

Total sample size (weight) requested, sample size (weight) used in Stage 1, and sample preparation for Stage 1 and Stage 3, varied considerably between laboratories. No laboratory routinely reported at what sub-stage within Stage 1 asbestos was detected (i.e. during visual inspection using stereomicroscopy or during higher magnification PLM microscopy) and therefore when the sample inspection stopped. All such variables could have implications for the determination and identification of presence / absence of asbestos in the soil samples, and the type of asbestos reported to be present in Stage 1.

With regards to the data needed to inform a human health risk assessment, only 20% of laboratory responses indicated that they would routinely provide comment on the condition of the asbestos identified in Stage 1 (i.e. weathered, degraded, non-degraded, disaggregated, not in original form) in addition to identifying the presence or absence of the three principal types of asbestos, and the form of that asbestos. A lines of evidence approach is often needed for asbestos risk assessment. For example, non-degraded asbestos material is that which despite being in or on the ground is in relatively good condition and capable of retaining most of the asbestos fibres. As such, non-degraded asbestos material may pose a lower risk to human health and should be considered within the risk assessment. Asbestos containing materials that have been significantly damaged or degraded will be more likely to release fibres and therefore pose a greater risk to human health.

A small number of laboratories did respond that they could provide asbestos type differentiation at quantification if required during Stage 2 and Stage 3, along with photographic evidence if requested, but this was not routine.

Reporting recommendations

The SoBRA paper on UK laboratory methods for the identification and quantification of asbestos in soil makes a series of recommendations for laboratory reporting of asbestos in soil results based on the requirement for human health risk assessment to be supported by clear, unambiguous laboratory data. One key element is the reporting of types and forms of asbestos, for all each type and form of asbestos identified. Within Stage 1 this should be for each of visual inspection, detailed inspection under x20-x40 stereomicroscope and pinch samples under x80-x500 magnification (PLM). Within Stage 2 individual masses for each type and form of asbestos identified should be reported, with mass reported in mg/kg not %wt/wt.

The SoBRA recommendations (the full detail of which is presented in the SoBRA paper) for laboratory reporting of asbestos in soil results would ensure that the data provided by the laboratory is clear and unambiguous. With the withdrawal of the of the SCA ‘Blue Book’ method for the determination of asbestos in soil, now is an opportune time for industry to adopt a new approach the analysis and reporting of asbestos in soil. Consistency is required in sample preparation, analytical procedures and reporting to ensure the resulting human health risk assessment can be undertaken with confidence.

When considering the data required within a human health risk assessment, there are other laboratory test methods that focus less on the reporting of the mass of asbestos present in the sample and focus more on the potential for airborne asbestos fibres arising from asbestos in soil. Two such methods that have been developed, or are in the process of being developed, by UK laboratories are:

• Respirable fibre count per unit weight of sample (this can be used to estimate airborne fibre numbers in association with airborne soil particles), and
• Dustiness tests (modified HSL drum tests designed to estimate the releasibility of asbestos fibres and provide normalised fibre to dust concentrations akin to those reported by Addison et al 1988).

Air quality guidelines for use in human health risk assessment

The SoBRA discussion paper on guidelines for airborne concentrations of asbestos fibres in ambient: implications for risk assessment was initially published in 2017. The paper has been prepared as an evidence base, with the aim of supporting the development of good practice for assessment of potential risks from asbestos at sites affected by land contamination.

The paper sets out a series of issues that need to be resolved before a UK air quality guideline value can be proposed for asbestos, but calls for the Asbestos in Soil Joint Industry Working Group to formulate a position regarding an air quality guideline for asbestos in the UK.

There are a range of existing air quality guidelines for asbestos fibres, provided both by international bodies (e.g. World Health Organisation) and national bodies (e.g. Health Council of the Netherlands). There are also different approaches in literature for calculating air quality guidelines for asbestos fibres, dependent on the exposure scenario under consideration. The SoBRA paper summarises a selection of internationally published air quality guidelines, together with the data upon which these are based, as well as calculating air quality guidelines using two different modelling approaches from literature. The existing air quality guidelines, and SoBRA calculated guidelines, are compared alongside published ambient background airborne concentrations to understand variability in thresholds for asbestos in air and the potential practicalities of those guidelines.

All models are having to extrapolate from relatively high occupational exposures that form the empirical evidence on which the models are based down to much lower environmental exposures.  The authors of these models differ in their interpretation of that empirical data and as a consequence there is variance in the model outputs for a given input exposure.  Risk estimates from these models can vary by an order of magnitude, and published air quality guidelines by more than two orders of magnitude due to differing assumptions on the relative potency of different asbestos types.

The updated paper includes risk estimates calculated using SoBRA’s workbook (beta version freely available at https://sobra.org.uk/resources/reports/) using the linear as well as the non-linear version of the Hodgson & Darnton model (Hodgson & Darnton, 2000) as well as updates on the age adjustment calculations. The paper recommends that the linear version of the Hodgson & Darnton model for pleural mesothelioma is used to estimate risk and calculate air guideline values in conjunction with the non-linear variants for peritoneal mesothelioma and lung cancer.

The tool allows users to select from the algorithm options presented in Hodgson & Darnton (2000), and enables users to perform model choice sensitivity analysis and evaluate the difference the use of alternative algorithms makes to estimated risk.  It is hoped that the tool will provide a consistent basis for the calculation and reporting of risk estimates and feedback on the tool is welcomed at info@sobra.org.uk.

References

Addition, J, Davies LST, Robertson, A, Wiley, RJ (1988). The release of dispersed asbestos fibres from soil. IOM Historical Research Report TM/88/14.

HSE (2005). Asbestos: The analysts’ guide for sampling, analysis and clearance procedures.

Mitcheson, B (2019). Variability in asbestos analysis in soil, AGS Magazine, February 2019 https://www.ags.org.uk/magazine/ags-magazine-january-february-2019/

SCA (2017). The quantification of asbestos in soil (2017), Methods for the examination of waters and associated materials, Standing Committee of Analysts, April 2017 [Withdrawn in October 2020].

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the work of the SoBRA asbestos subgroup, and in particular Barry Mitcheson for the development of the workbook tool, and both Barry and Simon Hay as primary authors of the risk calculations presented in the SoBRA air quality guidelines discussion paper.

On 29^th April, the AGS held their first webinar on the subject of ground risk, focusing on landslide risk reduction. The event was sponsored by RST Instruments, Geotechnical Engineering and Structural Soils.

This webinar saw Professor Mike Winter, (Director at Winter Associates Limited), Ian Nettleton, (Technical Director at Coffey Geotechnics Limited, A Tetra Tech Company) and Dr Andrew Ridley, (Managing Director at Geotechnical Observations Limited), discuss ground risks associated with slope instability. The event touched on risk assessment of landslide hazards, and the practical features to look for in the field. The speakers also provided insights into the instrumentation and monitoring of slope movements.

This paid for event was rated 4.5 stars out of 5, by our 125 registered delegates who attended from countries across the globe including Canada, Spain, Norway and Romania.

If you missed this webinar, the replay is now live and available for view on the AGS website. The webinar costs £25 for AGS Members and £30 for non-Members (prices exclude VAT). Click HERE to view the replay and download the speaker presentations and file handouts.

Article contributed by Patrick Cox. Managing Director for Environmental Contracting, AECOM and Dr Emma Langman, Managing Partner of BakerFish

The Lower Thames Crossing is described as ‘the biggest road project’ since the M25’. It’s also set to become the third-largest bored tunnel in the world, being built under the river in the heart of one of the world’s busiest cities.  It needs to be right!

The client, Highways England needed to ensure that all the data necessary regarding ground conditions and wider environmental considerations be available to ensure that the project is designed and built safely, efficiently, and with care to protect the natural and human environments.

Perfect Circle Joint Venture (a unique partnership between Pick Everard, Gleeds and AECOM) was appointed through the SCAPE framework to carry out multiple phases of the ground investigation work required.

Phase 3 began in early 2021, just as news began to emerge of the new Coronavirus threat.  The same month that the country went into lockdown, Perfect Circle appointed BakerFish as their Lean Consultant.

Does Lean apply to Ground Investigations? We are different!

Managing Partner, Dr Emma Langman explains:

“In 20 years of working with organisations to apply Lean principles, I have never yet come across one that didn’t claim to be ‘different’ and ‘unique’ and that Lean – with it’s background in manufacturing’ would “not work here.

“The ground investigation sector is no exception to this rule of thumb.

“I remember going head-to-head with one of the leadership team and saying ‘listen – if Lean can work on the oil fields of Iraq, it can certainly work in a farmer’s field in Essex’

“It was one of those moments when a consultant holds their breath to see what will happen. But I knew that Patrick and his team were fully committed to creating a culture of Lean and delivering efficiencies for Highways England, so it didn’t feel too risky to challenge.

“At the end of the day Lean only works when leaders engage and lead it. And in this project they certainly did”.

When you consider the nature of ground investigations, they are “not standard engineering” Emma explains, rather they are “huge open air science experiments, with large samples of soil rather than small samples of chemicals in test tubes”.

In fact, over the course of the Lean intervention, the entire team appreciated that ground investigations are about the flow of data – not of soil!

Did you really become more efficient because of Lean?

Recognising that GI is all about the flow of data through a system, the team used Lean principles to implement some huge savings for their client.

Managing Director, Patrick Cox gives an interesting example of how changing thinking towards a Lean mindset can have incredible results for a tiny investment in this anecdote:

“Before Emma joined the team we had done a lot of ‘common sense’ improvements, which we later learned were examples of Lean Thinking.

“For example, my team went to visit the laboratories in our supply chain to look at best practice for laying out logging and testing facilities.  From this we decided to create a shared logging facility that was specifically designed to provide a number of benefits including protecting our team from bad weather, enabling digital labelling and tracking of samples, providing a controlled environment for sample storage and more.

“This had already achieved savings in the hundreds of thousands of pounds, as well as driving up consistent and efficient ways of working to ensure quality and value for money.

“Even so, towards the peak of the ground investigation fieldwork we found that the logging facility was being swamped by samples for processing.

“Under pressure we slipped back into conventional thinking patterns and considered the solution to running out of space was obvious – increase the space!

“However, the costs of renting more facility space would come at a heavy cost.

“Instead, Emma nudged us on the call to remember that Lean is all about flow and that GI is all about data.

“So keeping front of mind that Lean is about reducing variation and waste, the answer became obvious.  Instead of procuring more space we simply arranged for more frequent ‘drop-offs’ of sample, which ‘smoothed the flow’ through the logging facility, flattening the demands curve, and meant that we saved the cost and effort of extending the facility.

What about improvements in the field?

Again, since GI work is essentially ‘a giant outdoor science experiment’ it is a great candidate for Lean improvement. The team used tools like TIMWOOD, root cause analysis, the 5 Whys (where you literally ask Why? 5 times) to find a number of improvements. For example, using our partner Equipe to undertake audits on machinery before it was used helped to avoid breakdowns, as well as (most important of all) improving the safety of the workforce.

In Package C, which hosted the Highways England site visit for their lean assessment (Simplified Lean Capability Assessment) the assessors were delighted to see how rig-side layouts were standardised and value-enabling work (such as setting up and taking down fencing etc) were provided by a support team, leaving the highly specialised rig teams free to focus on the ‘value-adding’ work of drilling.

What did the client think of your efforts in Lean?

The Simplified Lean Capability Assessment undertaken by Highways England scored an impressive 3.3 out of 4 (where 4 is ‘world class’ such as Toyota).

What are the key lessons for our readers?

Patrick shares “I was genuinely surprised to see the extent that Lean is applicable to GI work.  It was great to be able to deliver several million pounds worth of efficiency savings to our client while still achieving the project goals and collecting high quality data for the Lower Thames Crossing. Lean was key to that saving being realised”.

Emma says “it’s all about leadership. The Perfect Circle team really led from the top and over 30 managers (including several of the senior leadership team) engaged in one-to-one coaching to help them take on this new way of thinking.  It was also great to see the high levels of partnership working between Perfect Circle and their client team LTC, and Highways England, as well as the enthusiasm and engagement of the specialist suppliers involved in the project.  In twenty years of working in Lean, this was the most ‘joined up’ working and commitment to efficiency and quality I have seen. And that starts from the top”.

For more information and details including 40 different case studies of how Lean improved this project, please contact Patrick.Cox@aecom.com or emma@bakerfish.com.

And, last but not least, if you would like to learn more about the leadership that makes Lean work, take advantage of this offer for AGS readers who can claim a 10% reduction in ticket fees for the Servant Leadership Conference in May 2021. Find out more at www.servantleadershipconference.com and claim your discount using the code: AGSdisc10.

This year’s SiLC Annual Forum was held virtually on Tuesday 30^th March between 09:30-13:30. Over 100 delegates joined us on the webinar.

Hosted by SiLC PTP Chair, Ian Evans (Technical Director at Wood PLC), the event featured a stellar line up of expert, industry speakers, each covering a wide array of topics.

The interactive event encouraged audience participation via live polls, the webinar chat facility and Q&A sessions. Delegates also had the opportunity to network in one of the multiple breakout rooms, each co-hosted by our presenters and members of the SiLC PTP.

The event was sponsored by Jackson Remediation Ltd as the Diamond Sponsor and VertaseFLI Ltd as the Gold Sponsor.

Speakers

Joe Jackson of Jackson Remediation Ltd, presented on Remediation and Risk: Identification, Mitigation and Transparent Apportionment

Joe looked at the importance of Early Contractor Involvement (ECI) and mechanisms to engage with Contractor pre-Contract.  Transparent and collaborative Risk (and Opportunity) identification methods were discussed along with suitable methods of apportionment and mitigation.

Dr. Alan Thomas, Technical Fellow at ERM & Co-Chair of SuRF UK, gave a presentation on The SuRF UK Sustainability Process and Indicator Guidance.

The SuRF UK sustainability indicator set was originally published in 2011 and has been widely used both in the UK and internationally. Following review SuRF UK has further developed the guidance to provide a greater depth in the rationale for each headline and a more explicit set of instructions for their use. Alan provided an introduction and brief overview of this recently revised guidance.

Ellanor Joyce, Project Manager within the Magnox Winfrith End State Project, presented on the phased assessment of land quality for the Winfrith site through the final stages of decommissioning to support site closure

Ellanor is responsible for integrating site restoration objectives, interfacing with decommissioning projects and ensuring effective stakeholder engagement to support the final stages of decommissioning and site restoration.  The Magnox Winfrith nuclear site is moving through to decommissioning process to deliver the next planned land use of Heathland with Public Access and the eventual release from regulatory controls after 60 years of operations.

Ellanor provided an overview of the approach and process for land quality assessment and management across the site to allow the next land use and release from regulatory controls.

Dr. Tom Henman, Director at RSK Geosciences and Deputy Chair of the SiLC PTP, presented on Effective Risk Communication and Stakeholder Engagement

Starting with the question are we paying enough attention to communicating understanding of land contamination risks, Tom provided a reminder of relevant guidance and key principles for effective risk communication and stakeholder engagement. The award-winning Buchanan St. Ambrose Schools independent review was presented as a case study. Here such techniques were applied successfully to achieve a transition from stakeholder concern regarding health impacts and potential links to land contamination at the site and suspicion of public authorities’ motives to one of acceptance, trust and confidence being restored.

Highly experienced contaminated land officers Ann Barker and Rebekah Norbury jointly provided an introduction to the National Contaminated Land Officers’ Group (NCLOG) from inception through to progress to date plus an updated view on NQMS from a Contaminated Land Officer’s viewpoint.

Dr. Paul Nathanail, Technical Director Contamination Assessment and Remediation at GHD UK and Deputy Chair of the SiLC Board, provided an interesting and useful presentation on Professional Qualifications and their recognition in a post-Brexit world.

A professional is someone who is recognised by their peers as having special knowledge or skills and who applies them under a code of conduct.  Working in different jurisdictions as a recognised professional can allow knowledge transfer and provide suitable opportunities for the individual.  With the UK’s departure from the European Union, it is no longer the case that our professional qualifications are recognised within the EU – or vice versa.  Paul reflected on what this means for individuals and their potential clients.

In addition to the webinar speakers and presentations, a workshop on Sustainability was provided by Louise Allan MIEMA, CEnv, who is a Sustainability Manager in the Defence Infrastructure Organisation. Louise provided a workshop during the breakout sessions, bringing with her, 20 years experience in a variety of sustainability and environmental teams across the estate and equipment branches of the Ministry of Defence. Her expertise has lain in the strategic tools and processes that co-ordinate and encompass the many specialist topics under the Sustainable Development banner (including Land Quality objectives). These include Sustainability Appraisals and Strategic Environmental Assessment, Sustainable Procurement, and corporate Sustainability Strategies and governance.
Her current priorities include refining DIO’s Sustainability Strategy and embedding Social Value in infrastructure procurements. Both workshops were well attended and provided some thought provoking discussions.

Sponsor Overview

Jackson Remediation is a specialist Remediation and Enabling contractor which focusses on value creation and quality delivery, drawing upon deep technical expertise and profound understanding of the construction process. By consistently striving to address contamination issues in the most robust yet cost effective manner, clients never need to choose between price and quality again. https://www.jacksonremediation.co.uk/

VertaseFLI are extremely pleased to be sponsoring the SilC conference once again. VertaseFLI are one of the largest remediation contractors in the UK and technical excellence has always been at the core of our offering to clients. Our full range of service can be found at www.vertasefli.co.uk.

Contact SiLC@SiLC.org.uk if you have any queries about this event or our future events.

This free, monthly podcast will feature Steve Hadley, (Chair of the Federation of Piling Specialists and MD at Central Piling) where he will interview the movers and shakers of the ground engineering industry.

The first episode features Yvonne Ainsworth (Director of GDG) and Martin Pedley (Managing Director of GSS Piling) where they discuss the Piling 2020 Conference. The episode is sponsored by Central Piling and can be listened to HERE.

Steve Hadley says, “I’ve been involved with the FPS podcast now for nearly a year and we’ve attracted a really supportive group of listeners. The topics have been much broader than piling and technical aspects of our industry’s work, with regular themes related to environmental sustainability, equality and wellbeing. This has helped ensure that those tuning in are from a variety of backgrounds. Interestingly the latest data shows that over 30% of our listeners now are female, which compares well to the industry percentage of 11%. “

“Perhaps unsurprisingly with this form of media, our average listener is also relatively young. Therefore, I feel that a geotechnical podcast can play an important role in attracting people from all demographics into the industry and building its community. The support of the Ground Forum and Ground Engineering Magazine enables us to do this in a more expansive way. They will help us provide content across the range of geo disciplines and promotion of the show.”

Breaking Ground is available for free download on channels including Spotify, Apple Podcasts and Google Podcasts.