Article

Urban Geoscience: Opening the Industry to Inclusive and Diverse Communities

- by
Tags: Featured Urban Geoscience Webinar

Article provided by Dr Nick Koor – Reader in Geological Engineering University of Portsmouth

Over the last 15 years, we have seen numbers enrolling for geoscience degrees steadily falling and this has prompted many of us to do some serious soul-searching to work out why this might be. In doing so, what has become apparent to me is that Geoscience, as we have all known it, is perhaps no longer relevant to today’s demands for sustainability, or reaching the wide student audiences that other science degrees continue attracting. Numbers have fallen by 43% since 2005 and mirror a similar demise in students taking A-Level Geology, which tends to track the oil price (Figure 1). Looking at the longer term, A-level Geology student numbers peaked in 1983-84, coinciding with the North Sea oil boom, and since then there has been a steady decline of 66% in total numbers.

The climate emergency and shift away from carbon based energy will require Geoscience at Universities to examine and perhaps loosen its ties with the oil sector, to focus more on climate change, the energy transition, and urban geoscience, while embracing artificial intelligence and the big data challenges to make our degrees more relevant to Generation Z. In conjunction with these falling student numbers is the realisation that geoscience, in a University setting, is dominated by white middle-class males with black and Asian minorities poorly represented as students and academics, as well as those from poorer socio-economic backgrounds.

This article will focus on how we should make our degrees, and as a consequence industry, more fit for purpose sustainability-wise, inclusive and diverse academically, and potentially broaden the understanding of Geoscience to young people who are currently unaware it exists as a subject or that it provides viable career opportunities. I use the term Geoscience as a catch-all to include subjects at University and in the profession that encompass geology, earth science, hydrogeology, geophysics, engineering geology, and geohazards etc.

Figure 1 – Geoscience A-level and HE entry from 2002 to 2020 – statistics courtesy of University Geoscience UK

During the Webinar on the 30th July 2020, I asked the question: “Does anyone actually care, apart from geoscience departments at Universities, about this demise?” Until the lack of UK geoscience graduates actually starts to negatively impact UK PLC in terms of its ability to function, then unfortunately, I doubt that industry or government will be concerned. According to a survey taken after the Webinar, 83% (28 out of 34) of respondents stated that they did not currently have difficulty in recruiting geoscientists. So it would appear that this is presently a problem for geoscience departments in Universities but not necessarily industry. But what about over the next 30 years? If numbers continue falling then will this decline adversely affect UK PLC in achieving some of the grand challenges of our time? Such as: carbon neutrality by 2050; the energy transition; and resilience to climate change, all of which are problems that require significant geoscience expertise and leadership. Interestingly, 76% (26 out of 34) of AGS members who gave feedback studied for a geoscience first Degree, which suggests that if geoscience student numbers continue to fall radically then this will negatively affect the ability of AGS members to recruit graduating UK geoscientists.

There is much research around access to the STEM subjects (Geoscience is STEM). I will briefly discuss some longitudinal research that investigated the science aspirations of young people. The ASPIRES project started at Kings College in 2009 and continues now at University College London as ASPIRES 2 (Archer, Moote, Macleod, Francis & DeWitt. 2020). Looking at some of those important outcomes from the ASPIRES 2 project: only 16% of 10-18 year olds aspire to be a scientist, and within that age band aspirations remain unchanged. Yet, we know there is considerable interest in science and that 10-18 year olds appreciate and understand the importance of science. So why is it that only 16% of 10 to 18 year olds want to be a scientist? The research tells us that science is perceived as a subject only for “brainy high achieving students” and this attitude is exaggerated through to secondary school years. It is the students identifying as white middle-class males, with high levels of what the APSIRES 2 researchers term “science capital”, who are inclined towards science as a career. Science capital is defined as a person’s understanding of science through parents, friends and family, careers and teacher advice at school etc. This reinforces white middle-class dominance in science as this group is more likely to have access to these capital-building experiences than someone from a low income, inner city background. When looking at black students the trend is different. Many aspire to be scientists at a young age but this enthusiasm does not translate beyond 16 years of age. The ASPIRES 2 research tells us that this is due to many factors but primarily structural racism, societal inequalities, and the lack of science capital.

The Black Lives Matter movement has had the effect of accelerating the whole issue of underrepresentation of Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) students and academics in Higher Education (HE). This is a really important issue that needs to be addressed by all of us. In the UK, 14% of the population is BAME, this percentage increases to about 18% for 18 to 24 year olds (UK Census 2011). When we consider urban populations, that percentage increases to: 42% in Birmingham, 40% in London, and 33% in Manchester for instance. Dowey, Barclay, Fernando, Giles, Houghton, Jackson, Mills, Newton, Rogers and Williams (Unpublished) report that in 2018/19, BAME enrolment in undergraduate Geoscience was just 10.1% with Physical Geography being the worst of all the 54 Physical Sciences, with 8.5% BAME representation on undergraduate courses. An internal report by Fernando and Antel (2020) for Oxford University’s Department of Earth Sciences asserts that BAME students make up about 5% in Geoscience compared to about 11% in other science departments at Oxford. I would imagine that these percentages are very similar in the UK “ground engineering” sector.  For instance in a survey carried out by Business in the Community, results show that just 3.4% of all construction managers in the UK are from ethnic minorities.

What are the barriers to BAME students with respect to Geoscience? From anecdotal evidence, work undertaken by Oxford University and others, plus the Aspires 2 research, I would argue that: Geoscience is perceived as a white male dominated subject and as such this discipline does not look inclusive; Geoscience is seen as the “dirty polluter” rather than the solution to climate change; BAME students are commonly from inner city communities (as the stats tell us) and have little or no “geoscience capital” as opposed to white middle class students who are more likely to go to a private school and therefore have access to far better careers advice and teachers who are tuned-in to Geoscience etc.; BAME students have little or no exposure to the principles of field work, which they may perceive as expensive and often tied to locations where there are very few BAME people (rural France for instance) which might feel threatening as an experience; Geoscience is seen as being for outdoorsy types with little or no urban context; the subject is considered old fashioned and out of date, focussing on outmoded industries such as oil. These barriers are intersectional in so far as they affect not only BAME students but other underrepresented groups in Geoscience including students that identify as female or transgender, for instance (Fernando and Antel, 2020) .

Our current approach to Geoscience is, in my opinion, far too old fashioned and probably does not appeal to young students from an urban background who: do not have any Geoscience Capital, attend inner city schools with little outside space, have careers teachers who do not fully understand the opportunities that Geoscience can offer, and parents who are not aware of the professions that a degree in Geoscience lead to. I would argue therefore that there needs to be a complete re-think in the way we teach Geoscience. As the ASIPRES 2 researchers say, “we need to change”, not the students, in order to make Geoscience much more attractive and relevant.

Photo: 2019 Jan. Lam Tin Tunnel Hong Kong. Photo taken by Nick Koor

In light of the above it is clear to me that we need to do something different in Geoscience education to increase diversity and at the same time boost the overall numbers of students wanting to take Geoscience as a Degree. Introducing Urban Geoscience into the undergraduate curriculum may be one way of achieving some of the changes that are clearly required. Urban Geoscience is about the understanding and utilisation of the ground beneath our cities. In the UK over 80% of the population live in urban areas (2011 UK census). According to the UN, 55% of the world population currently live in cities and this is projected to increase to 63% by 2050. Therefore, Urban Geoscience has the potential to be relevant to a massive number of young people. I should emphasise that Urban Geoscience is not just another term for Engineering Geology or Geological Engineering (see Abolins, 2002). In my mind it encompasses subjects such as sustainable and resilient cities, sub-surface urban planning and architecture, and future cities to name a few. A Degree could encompass multi-disciplined teaching with architects, engineers and planners to develop an integrated, modern holistic degree which satisfies industry and produces graduates that are equipped with the correct skills in digital visualization, manipulation of big datasets, spatial analysis and programming together with the fundamental knowledge around geoscience, ground characterisation, hydrogeology, the Anthropocene, ground engineering design, and ground-structure interaction.

There is an opportunity here for industry and the HE sector to work together to develop a totally focussed and inclusive new type of degree in Urban Geoscience. It is recognised that some University geoscience departments will not have the expertise or staff to deliver a full degree programme and may require help from others if they want to travel this route. My thoughts are that there could be a movement to develop a Degree Apprenticeship (DA) “Geoscience” Standard which has a number of degree pathway exit points, one of which would be Urban Geoscience. The advantages for the student in doing a DA are many, but one significant benefit is that there is no debt at the end of the degree. As there is no DA in geosciences or related disciplines, the combination of DA plus Urban Geoscience may be attractive to an entirely new set of potential geoscientists who may otherwise not think University is for them or would never consider Geoscience as a degree or career.

My challenge to the geoscience community is therefore as follows:

  1. Support the development and teaching of Urban Geoscience at University in partnership with and support from industry.
  2. Actively engage with movements such as @BlkinGeoscience to support and enhance awareness and opportunity for minority groups in geoscience.
  3. Become involved and expand the mentoring initiatives launched by the Ground Forum and Federation of Piling Specialists to guide and tutor underrepresented groups through university and into the profession.

Archer, L., Moote, J., Macleod, E., Francis, B., & DeWitt, J. (2020). ASPIRES 2: Young people’s science and career aspirations, age 10–19.

Fernando, B and Antell, G. (2020). Recommendations for improving racial equality, diversity, and inclusion in the Department of Earth Sciences, University of Oxford Ad hoc working group on BAME issues1 February 2020.

Dowey, N., Barclay, J., Fernando, B., Giles, S., Houghton, J., Jackson, C. A. L., … & Williams, R. Diversity Crisis in UK Geoscience Research Training. Unpublished.

Article

Better Risk Management in Ground Engineering

- by
Tags: AGS Data Format Featured FPS

Article provided by Phil Hines, Federation of Piling Specialists

Almost all construction experts agree that the greatest risk to a construction project is ground conditions and in particular, when ground conditions are different to those expected. Equally most people agree that employing computers to analyse vast amounts of data and present it in a user-friendly way is far more effective than having humans reading reams of data, transposing data into different formats such as excel and producing 2-D plots from which to produce designs etc. So why is it that Federation of Piling Specialist (FPS) members in a recent survey responded that they still receive 96% of the site investigation (SI) data and information, on which they have to base their advice, solutions and pricing, as pdf documents?

The first and obvious thought might be that it is because digital data does not exist? Wrong! The Association of Geotechnical Specialists (AGS) launched the common data transfer format for site investigation data in 1991, which is almost 30 years ago! This was well before BIM or Common Data Environment had become commonly known digital terms in the construction industry. The AGS are currently leading a cross industry working group that are looking at better ways to procure, specify and distribute SI information including the use of AGS data.  So, the SI contractors are producing the digital data needed to make the optimal interpretation of the conditions, but the FPS specialist contractors are not receiving it. This begs the question – where is it?

All around us we hear about the power of digital data, yet construction is painfully slow in adapting. The government’s challenge to the industry becoming BIM level 2 compliant caused a scare for a while and got people interested in the topic but has it really changed the way we work. On many construction projects there are teams of architects and consulting engineers pouring over project models but how many of them include the AGS format soil information and why is it not shared with the specialist contractors?

The specialist contractors can help the client better manage the risk in the ground developing innovative solutions, but these can only be fully optimised by having the best possible understanding of the ground conditions. Having the data will also help us specialists more accurately assess the ground conditions and their effects on methodology, production rates etc., reducing risk priced into projects. Having a common understanding of the ground conditions will also help in reducing conflict when things are different because the base assumptions will be more clearly established. But there is a word of caution just because we use the digital information does not mean that the actual ground conditions will not vary on occasions because that is the beauty of geotechnics!

So next time you receive a SI report please ask where the AGS format data is held and how you can transmit it (or give access to it) to the specialist contractor members of the FPS along with that tender enquiry! Please do not wait to be asked for it – we often only get one to two weeks to price a project and we need this information at the start not halfway through the tender period. Then working together, we can better manage the risk in ground engineering for the benefit of all.

Article Business Practice Contaminated Land Data Management Executive Geotechnical Instrumentation & Monitoring Laboratories Loss Prevention Safety

AGS Helplines

- by
Tags: AGS helplines Featured

Currently the AGS offer helplines to all Member companies and practitioners with respect to:

  • the AGS Data Format (the discussion forum on the AGS Data Format web site)
  • contractual / legal matters (AGS Legal Helpline at Beale and Co)
  • chemical safety (AGS Chemical Safety Helpline at Marquis & Lord).

These Helplines are advertised in each issue of the AGS Magazine and these three Helplines will continue to operate as they currently do.

However, the AGS is now formalising the reporting service for Member Companies and Practitioners with respect to aspects of interest to the other AGS Working Groups, namely; Contaminated Land, Health & Safety, Geotechnics, Instrumentation & Monitoring and Laboratories.  The Terms of Reference under which these Helplines will operate are summarised below.

The Enquiry

  1. A valid enquiry will be one that raises issues of general/ broader concern. For example; indicating a new area of uncertainty/ issues of policy or that prompt appropriate industry advocacy by the AGS.
  2. A valid enquiry will be one likely to prompt discussion at the Working Group (WG) and that is likely to lead to the need for guidance from the WG in due course.
  3. A valid enquiry will raise issues in respect of previous AGS advice (i.e. which may now appear to be out of date or inaccurate in some way).
  4. An invalid enquiry will be requesting some site specific advice which is just seeking some free consultancy. For example; here is my data set – what does this mean with respect to a particular ground related risk (geotechnical or geoenvironmental).
  5. An invalid enquiry will be one requesting that the WG intervene/ adjudicate in a dispute / disagreement on a technical matter between two AGS members.

Procedure

  1. All initial enquiries should be made to Forum Court Associates (FCA). If considered appropriate FCA will forward on to the relevant Working Group Leader and AGS Chair.
  2. The WG Leader will agree to accept or reject and inform FCA (who will then inform the AGS Chair).
  3. The WG Leader will then allocate responsibility for drafting a response (this may be following a WG meeting).
  4. The response will be approved by the WG Leader and/ or the WG prior to sending to the enquirer (with FCA and AGS Chair copied in).
  5. The WG and AGS Chair will consider whether broader issues have been raised that warrant discussion / publication by the WG.
Article Loss Prevention

Coal Authority and Mining Risk Assessment

- by
Tags: Featured

Background

An AGS Member Company has raised concerns regarding the Coal Authority and Coal Mining Risk Assessments (CMRAs).  In summary, those concerns arise as a result of the Coal Authority both:

  1. acting as a Statutory Consultee for planning applications (in relevant areas) and thus providing related guidance for developers and
  2. undertaking CMRAs on behalf of third parties as a commercial service.

The Coal Authority responded to the Member’s initial enquiries by providing a copy of their Policy document describing how they implement an ethical wall between the team that produce CMRAs and the staff who deal with the Coal Authority’s planning obligations.

Nonetheless, concerns remained:

  1. that the Coal Authority was both gamekeeper and poacher and was (or may be perceived to be) applying different standards to CMRAs produced by the Authority to those prepared by commercial consultancies and
  2. that the Coal Authority was not fairly competing in the market to provide CMRAs.

Preliminary enquiries

The AGS Loss Prevention Working Group has made preliminary enquiries with a lawyer specialising in Competition Law.  He advised that there may be aspects relevant to the Competition Act 1998 (which prohibits undertakings from abusing their dominant position in a market). There have been cases where one entity is entrusted to carry out a form of approval process  on behalf of the state while simultaneously carrying out its own competing service and these cases would suggest that the safeguard measures the Coal Authority has set out in its response may be insufficient.  There is also the issue of State aid having an adverse effect on the market which can arise where there is cross-subsidisation between a public function and a competitive market one.

Request to AGS Members

The AGS would like to assess the extent of this issue and determine whether we should commission a formal legal opinion, or take some other action.  If you have had similar (or indeed contrary) experience to the AGS Member, or have concerns about this issue, please let us have some brief details by e-mail to ags@ags.org.uk .

Article Report Loss Prevention

AGS Loss Prevention WG – Update

- by
Tags: Featured Loss Prevention WG

Hugh Mallett, AGS Loss Prevention Working Group Leader, has provided an overview on the groups top three items which were discussed at a virtual meeting on 8th September 2020.

PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY INSURANCE – COST AND OTHER ASPECTS

 The availability and cost of Professional Indemnity insurance is a topic which is extremely important to all AGS member companies and practitioners.  The market has become much harder over the last couple of years and good practice advice would be useful for members in preparing for discussions with their insurers.

In response, information on the difficult PI market will be provided in due course. The Loss Prevention Working Group are also looking to provide some good practice advice on: (i) managing your PI policy and (ii) issues for retired members.

 COAL AUTHORITY – POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND UNFAIR COMPETITION

 The Loss Prevention Working Group have drafted an article, (which is published in this issue of AGS Magazine), summarising the experience of some AGS members with regards to the Coal Authority.

In summary, concerns have been raised regarding the Coal Authority and Coal Mining Risk Assessments (CMRAs) due to the Coal Authority both:

  1. acting as a Statutory Consultee for planning applications (in relevant areas) and thus providing related guidance for developers and
  2. undertaking CMRAs on behalf of third parties as a commercial service.

The Loss Prevention Working Group have made initial enquiries with a lawyer and obtained advice on competition law.

 Currently it is not clear whether the issues raised regarding the Coal Authority are “one-off” or localised.  It appears that there may be aspects of Competition Law which may be of more general relevance.  The request for information in the magazine article will help determine the need for and direction of any next steps.

 LEGAL ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH AGS DIGITAL DATA

 Position Paper is being prepared by Beale & Co with the aim of clarifying the legal issue associated with the “ownership of data”.  If appropriate a Client Guide may then be prepared.

A paper previously presented at the AGS Annual Conference raised concerns regarding the legal issues of the ownership of data.  Potential solutions have been discussed since then, but the legal position is still to be clarified.  The forthcoming Note from Beale & Co will aim to provide this clarity.

Article Event

Webinar Sponsorship

Tags: Featured sponsorship webinars
Webinar Sponsorship
1970-01-011970-01-01
Add to Calendar

Since our first webinar in July 2020, our virtual events have been a huge success with over 7,800 delegates registering to attend. We frequently have attendees from across the globe including countries such as USA, Canada, Hong Kong, Australia, Italy and UAE to name but a few, and sponsorship provides a fantastic opportunity to put your company in front of a worldwide audience.

The AGS have both Headline and Associate sponsorship packages available for all webinars.
Packages are limited, however bespoke packages can be developed with companies (subject to space) to suit all budgets.

 

HEADLINE SPONSOR
*one package available per webinar
Price: £400 (members) or £640 (non-members)

  • Company website link or pop-up promotion to feature during the live webinar
  • Large logo on sponsor slide during the webinar
  • Company mention during webinar opening and closing address
  • Logo and overview in the event program
  • Company Q&A feature in AGS Magazine (5,700 subscribers)
  • Full page advert in AGS Magazine
  • Two complementary event registrations
  • Company logo and overview featured on the webinar registration page
  • Logo featured on promotional marketing emails
  • Company logo and overview on the AGS’ Twitter page (3,455 followers)
  • Company logo and overview on the AGS’ LinkedIn page (7,003 followers)
  • Company logo featured on replay email campaigns
  • Company inclusion in a follow up article in AGS Magazine (5,700 subscribers)

 

ASSOCIATE SPONSOR
*10 packages available per webinar
Price: £150 (members) or £240 (non-members)

  • Logo on sponsor slide during the webinar
  • Logo and overview in the event program
  • Company mention during webinar opening & closing address
  • Logo featured in promotional marketing emails
  • Company directory insert in AGS Magazine, worth £50 (5,700 subscribers)
  • One complementary webinar registration
  • Company logo and overview on the AGS’ Twitter page (3,455 followers)
  • Company logo and overview on the AGS’ LinkedIn page (7,003 followers)
  • Company mention in a follow up article in AGS Magazine (5,700 subscribers)
  • Company overview on the AGS website
  • Company logo featured on replay email campaigns

All prices exclude VAT.

If your company would like to sponsor any AGS webinars or if you’d like any further information on our events programme, please contact Caroline Kratz on ags@ags.org.uk

Article

AGS Helplines

- by
Tags: AGS helplines Featured

All Members of the Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists are entitled to free chemical and contractual advice through the use of Loss Prevention Committee Members, Marquis & Lord and Beale & Co.

For advice on chemical safety and best practice, Marquis & Lord will provide 30 minutes of free advice to all AGS Members.

Additionally, if you’re an AGS Member and are looking for legal advice, please contact Beale & Co and ask quote ‘AGS Helpline’ where the first 15 minutes of legal advice will be free of charge.

If you are looking for advice, the helplines are still open despite the ongoing situation with COVID-19.

CHEMICAL SAFETY HELPLINE

Marquis & Lord            

Tel: +44 (0) 121 288 2386

www.marquisandlord.com

LEGAL HELPLINE

Beale & Co

Telephone: +44 (0) 20 7469 0400 (Please quote ‘AGS Helpline’)

www.beale-law.com

If you have any queries regarding AGS Data Format, there is a discussion forum on the AGS website, where queries can be posted and answered by the Data Format team.

For all other queries, please email ags@ags.org.uk, we will then forward your email to the relevant AGS Working Group.

Article Report Safety

AGS Safety WG – Update

- by
Tags: Featured Safety WG

Roseanna Bloxham, AGS Safety Working Group Leader, has provided an update from the Groups most recent meeting, which was held virtually on 20th May. Here is an overview on the top topics which are currently in discussion:

COVID-19 SAFE WORKING PRACTICES ON SITE
Version 1 of our guidance document on safe working practices was released in May 2020. This is an active working document and will be updated and re-released as government guidelines change and new industry processes are developed.

The group have worked hard to produce this guidance quickly in light of the COVID-19 crisis with the outside assistance of Paul Nathanial. I am extremely grateful for all the hard work they have put in, but we understand it is work in progress.

COVID-19 was a new risk to the industry meaning there was little guidance on how we should continue to work. The AGS Safety Working Group felt it was important to aid their members at this time by producing an outline document that shares ideas for measures which could be introduced.

COVID-19 is likely to have an ongoing impact to the industry as a whole. At present it is unclear how large this impact will be and how long it will last. The main focus of the Safety Working Group is to provide our members with guidance and information to help keep them working and safe during this time.

If any readers of AGS Magazine have any comments or thoughts for future versions of this guide, please do send comments across to ags@ags.org.uk for consideration.

TRIAL PITTING
Trial pitting is currently an ongoing discussion for the group. There are a number of guidance documents associated with trial pitting within the industry with conflicting views. In addition, the questionnaire sent out by Steve Everton in October 2019 highlighted that there are discrepancies within companies regarding safety when trial pitting, and no obvious quick and easy solutions. Given the scale of the topic a separate sub-group has been formed to tackle the issues in greater detail. The initial aim of the group is to review existing AGS guidance associated with trial pitting.

Safety surrounding trial pitting is complex, whilst this process of investigation has been around for decades with little evidence of falls into pits, there is a big ‘what if’ hanging over the process. The AGS Safety Working Group feel it is important to investigate potential ways to target this ‘what if’ to pre-empt and prevent harm to their members.

GENERAL OVERHAUL OF AGS EXISTING GUIDANCE
It has been noticed by the group that a number of guidance documents on the AGS website are over 6 years old and may have been overlooked. The group has decided to put a focus on reviewing these older documents and either bring them up to date in line with current guidance or re-write them and withdraw as necessary.

ADDITIONAL TOPICS
In addition to the topics mentioned above, the Safety Working Group hold regular, ongoing discussions related to mental health and undergraduate involvement and training.

Article

Q&A with Steve Hadley

- by
Tags: Featured Federation of Piling Specialists FPS Q&A

Name: Steve Hadley

Job title: Managing Director and Chair of the Federation of Piling Specialists

Company: Central Piling and the Federation of Piling Specialists

At university I had an industrial placement year working in both a contracting and consulting role. Post-graduation, I settled on an amalgamation of the two with a design and build geotechnical contractor, Rock and Alluvium. I managed to gain a lot of experience in quite a short space of time due to the rapid expansion of the business at that time. Fortunately, the company placed a great deal of faith in my burgeoning ability and I was able to increase my management responsibilities along with my technical skills. I spent seven years there in a large variety of roles and became a Chartered Engineer at the earliest opportunity.

My big break came when an opportunity came up to take over the business at Central Piling and I negotiated the purchase of the business. Since then my responsibilities have leaned more towards business improvement and commercial areas, but obviously as Managing Director, I oversee all aspects of our work.

Who or what inspired you to join the piling industry? 
My personal tutor at Loughborough University was a geotechnics lecturer called Paul Fleming. I really connected with him and that helped me understand the subject, which in turn encouraged me to pursue it as a career. I’m still great friends with him.

What does a typical day entail? 
I wake up at 6am and start the day with yoga, followed by a big breakfast. I start work at 8am and first plan my day and respond to any urgent emails. I then generally spend a couple of hours with  more creative work such as writing blogs or marketing plans. I’ll then get out for a run and have a quick bite to eat before sitting down with my Estimating Director and Technical Manager to review high value and complex schemes. I’ll then join the contracts team to review production and any HSQE or HR issues that have arisen during the day.

Are there any projects that you’re particularly proud to be a part of? 
We completed a scheme for Galliard Homes called Harbour Central a few years ago. This was a complex deep basement and 45 storey tower. We used some sophisticated design techniques to understand the soil and structure interaction. We delivered the job significantly under budget and ahead of programme. Everyone pulled together and we had a great relationship with the client and consultant teams from Meinhardt and CGL.

What are the most challenging aspects of your role? 
There are times when I have to have difficult conversations with people about performance. This is a crucial part of the role so they understand the expectations that I and the company has. Similarly, I can get feedback if there’s something that the business can do to assist them. Ultimately it does make the process of severing the relationship easier if you’ve done everything to engage along the way.

When did you join the FPS and why? 
I’ve been involved with the FPS since my early days at Rock & Alluvium where I sat on the Technical Committee. Central Piling joined around eight years ago. At the time, I saw it as an opportunity to help improve the business and provide a benchmark against other contractors. Since then as the company has matured and I see our participation more about playing a part in improving the lives of people working in the industry.

As Chair of the FPS, what does your role involve? 
As well as the administrative side of the role, I’m the figurehead and responsible along with the rest of the Executive Committee for agreeing lots of the initiatives that the FPS undertakes. I’ll stay closely involved with many of those through their evolution.

What are your ambitions for the Federation of Piling Specialists over the next two year? 
I’m particularly keen to ensure that the FPS messages resonate with more people, so I’m working hard to ensure that we look at alternative methods of outreach such as the blogs, podcasts and the webinar series that we’ve launched. My passion for wellbeing and equality is quite well established so they will be very prominent themes during my tenure. Nevertheless, the traditional FPS priorities such as site safety and commercial good practice will still be an integral part of FPS activity.

Why do you feel the FPS is important to the industry? 
As a collective representing approximately 80% of the industry by turnover, we have a very strong influence when producing statements on sector issues. The various committees also contain the best minds within the industry in their respective fields and the FPS provides a forum in which they can work together to produce best practice guidance.

What changes would you like to see implemented within the geotechnical industry? 
We need to make the industry more inclusive. There are practical ways to do this which the FPS is actively pursuing such as the mentoring scheme, internships and networking opportunities. Improving occupational health will also be beneficial in addressing the lack of gender and BAME diversity but it is important to everyone.

How do you feel COVID-19 has affected the construction industry and what can be done so the industry can make a full recovery? 
It’s been a challenging period in many different ways. Friends of mine have struggled with the isolation and the uncertainty that has developed. The industry has adapted well and ultimately the work will return to normal levels. The financial support from the government and ultimately the guidance via Build UK have also been welcomed. Changes to some of our working practices have additionally provided an indicator of how we can work more sustainably in the future.

Article Loss Prevention

Ground Investigation – Scottish Law Variations

- by
Tags: Featured Law of Limitation Law of Prescription Scottish Law

Note provided by Beale & Co

The case of Midlothian Council v Raeburn Drilling and Geotechnical Ltd, RPS Planning & Developments Ltd, Blyth & Blyth Consulting Engineers Ltd  & Bracewell Stirling Architects [2019] CSOH 29  is a useful reminder that Scotland is a different legal jurisdiction from England & Wales.  Whilst there are areas where Scottish substantive law is very similar to English law, there are also areas of divergence, as well as a different Court system and procedure for claims north of the border.  AGS members should bear this in mind when signing up to contracts governed by Scottish law and when considering bringing or when facing claims in Scotland that will be pursued through the Scottish Courts.

The above-mentioned case concerns the important topic of when claims become time-barred.  In England & Wales, this is called the law of limitation. The law of limitation is covered in LPG 8 of the AGS Loss Prevention Guidance.  In Scotland, it is largely covered by what is called the law of prescription.   There are significant differences between prescription (in Scotland) and limitation (in England & Wales).

In terms of claims for breach of contract, the most obvious difference concerns time periods.  In Scotland, the starting point is that the obligation to make payment for a loss caused by a breach of contract “prescribes” i.e. expires after five years.  In England & Wales, the starting point is that a claim for breach of contract becomes time-barred six years after the breach (if the contract is under hand) or 12 years (if the contract is executed as a deed).

The question of when (under Scottish law) the five year prescription period commences was considered in the above-mentioned case.  In this widely reported decision, the Outer House of the Scottish Court of Session held that the prescription period started on a very early date, thus resulting in a tough decision for the claimant (and a very favourable outcome for the defendant consultant).

The case will be of wider interest to AGS members as it concerns an alleged escape of gas from former mine works beneath a residential housing development at Gorebridge near Edinburgh.  The owner of the site, Midlothian Council, brought a claim against (amongst others) its consulting engineers on the project, Blyth & Blyth, alleging negligence in relation to their site investigation services and advice.

In a decision concerned solely with the issue of prescription, the Scottish Court held that the Council’s prescription period against Blyth & Blyth commenced as soon as the Council incurred expenditure on the construction of the development in reliance on Blyth & Blyth’s advice.  This was despite the fact that, at that stage, the Council had no inkling of either any issues with the development or with Blyth & Blyth’s advice.  However, the Court decided that the expenditure was wasted and thus constituted a loss, and that (as it knew of the expenditure) the Council had the requisite knowledge of the loss for the purposes of starting the prescription period.  The result being that more than five years had passed between the Council’s expenditure and it commencing Court proceedings against Blyth & Blyth.  Therefore, the claim had prescribed and was out of time.  (For the avoidance of any doubt, no fault was attributed to any of the defendants.)

It is important to note that this case may well not be the last word on prescription issues in Scotland in the context of construction disputes, as other cases work their way through the Courts.  There is also the prospect of legislative reform as a new Prescription Act is pending.  However, for now, AGS members should note this case, especially if you face the prospect of a claim in Scotland arising from your professional services, as the Midlothian decision is clearly favourable for consultants.

The information in this article is, of necessity, generic and is not intended to be a complete or comprehensive statement of the law, nor does it constitute legal or specialist advice.  It is intended only to highlight issues that may be of interest to AGS members.  Neither the writer, nor AGS, assumes any responsibility for any loss which may arise from accessing, or reliance on the material and all liability is disclaimed accordingly.  Professional advice should be taken before applying the content of the article to particular circumstances.

Article Contaminated Land

The Importance of Field Filtering and Preservation for Dissolved Metals to Prevent Significant Bias in Sampling and Analysis

- by
Tags: Featured Field Filtering

Article contributed by Geraint Williams (ALS Global) and Claire Stone (i2 Analytical UK)

Member of the Contaminated Land Working Group

Introduction

Most practitioners understand that field filtration and preservation is considered as a minimum standard when collecting water samples for dissolved metals analysis. However, many people may be unaware of the causes and potential magnitude of negative consequences associated with delayed filtering.

The need for field filtering and preservation

Dissolved metals in water exist in complex equilibria, which can be impacted by many physical and chemical factors, particularly redox conditions, pH or temperature which can trigger changes due to precipitation, co-precipitation, sorption or dissolution of particulate matter.  These factors can cause significant positive or negative bias to dissolved metal concentrations.  The only way to ensure that water samples collected for dissolved metals will accurately represent conditions at the time of sampling is to conduct filtration in the field immediately after sample collection.  The filtered sample should be placed in a dedicated preservative bottle.  The type of preservative bottle depends on the specific metal contaminants of concern.

Co-Precipitation of metals

Perhaps the most common pitfall from delayed filtration of dissolved metals is caused by the precipitation of iron oxides and associated co-precipitation of other metals.  This happens because ferrous iron is relatively water soluble (up to 100 mg/l), whereas ferric iron is practically insoluble in water under normal environmental conditions (generally <10 µg/l).   Ferrous iron exists and is stable in anaerobic waters but when a groundwater sample is exposed to air, oxidation of ferrous iron to ferric iron can occur rapidly, as in Figure 1, sometimes in less than an hour (oxidation rates increase substantially with higher pH).

Figure 1

09:42                              10:14                                  10:29                            10:46

Pictures published with the permission of Peter Hewitt, Laing O’Rourke

When iron precipitation occurs in a sample, other metals can co-precipitate, causing substantial changes to the overall dissolved composition of metals in the sample.  This is a well-known phenomenon, and precipitation of iron under these circumstances is expected but co-precipitation of other metals is generally less understood.

Case Study on Co-Precipitation

ALS studied the impact of iron precipitation on the co-precipitation of other metals from groundwater samples and found substantial losses of most dissolved metals (in comparison to field filtered metal concentrations), with losses up to 100% in several cases where filtration was delayed (by 6-days in these worst-case examples).  Arsenic, lead and cadmium were particularly impacted by co-precipitation, in addition to the expected loss of iron.  A summary of the results for arsenic, lead, cadmium and iron are shown in Figure 2.

For these five samples, arsenic losses averaged over 80%, lead losses averaged over 95% and cadmium losses varied significantly by sample, ranging from zero to 97% loss.  The impact on sample results can be clearly seen, with many of the samples potentially having key metal concentrations underestimated by a factor of 10 to 100 times if correct filtration techniques were not employed.

Figure 2

Conclusion

There has long been an awareness of the negative impacts of delayed filtering and preservation, however, the magnitude of the effects of co-precipitation of a range of key metal contaminants, not just iron, needs to be taken into account when reviewing results from a laboratory.

Care needs to be taken to ensure the filtration is carried out correctly and effectively. It is not uncommon for filters to block due to high amounts of particulates in solution and in such cases the filtration may become impossible, or there may be filter “bleed through” whereby the particulates bypass the filter and end up in the final laboratory sample. Where this happens, the sample is compromised as the sample is not fully filtered to produce a dissolved sample; it is also additionally compromised in that it is not a “total” metals sample either.

In order to prevent these issues, samples should always be correctly filtered and preserved to ensure they are representative of field conditions and the subsequent analysis of dissolved metals is reliable and valid.  Such data is frequently used to inform controlled waters risk assessment or remediation.

References

  • AGS Guide to Environmental Sampling, Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists, 2019
  • BS EN ISO 5667-3: 2018 Water quality: Sampling – Part 3: Guidance on the preservation and handling of samples
  • BS ISO 5667-11: 2009 Water quality. Sampling. Guidance on sampling groundwaters
Article

Should we get excited about the Mining Waste Directive and DoWCoP?

- by
Tags: CL:AIRE DoWCoP Featured Mining Waste Directive SiLC

Article contributed by Peter Witherington, Professional and Technical Panel Member of SiLC

I hesitate to suggest it is ever possible to become excited about waste. However, since that memorable day in 1994 when friendly Auntie CoPA left us, my children have called me a ‘sad dad’. This is probably because I loved telling them the fairy tale about how, because of an evil spell from a wicked witch who lived in lands across the sea, the sand from their sandpit underwent a magical transformation into that dreaded Monster Waste when they dropped it on my lawn.

The twists and turns in this tale over the last 16 years have left us breathless with the grandest lawyers in the land knitting together a web of intrigue to the design of the wicked witch. But fear not, in the nick of time, fairy godmother CL:AIRE brought us Princess DoWCop who, wielding her magic wand, gave the cleverest servants superpowers to fight that dreaded Monster returning him back to sand. And they all lived happily ever after . . .

Well, unfortunately, Prince DoWCoP’s powers were limited and unable to give superpowers to turn the Waste Monsters carelessly spilled onto the beach the beach, back to sand.

I am sorry but that is exciting as I can make the story but maybe someone else could pick it up and make it into a children’s best seller.

So, what is the reality? Article 2.4 of the Mining Waste Directive (MWD) is quite specific in stating that waste falling within its scope (extractive waste) is not subject to the Landfill Directive. As DoWCoP only deals with waste covered by the Landfill Directive, paragraph 11.1 was introduced, which expressly excludes its application to wastes that fall under the scope of the MWD. The directive defines extractive waste as: “waste resulting from the prospecting, extraction, treatment and storage of mineral resources and the working of quarries”. Even though the material may have been deposited decades ago, it would still qualify as waste unless the ‘end of waste’ test has been satisfied (and I think we can assume that if the material has just been left in situ and not recovered in any way, it will still be waste). It would therefore appear that in redeveloping former extractive sites, the construction industry could be dealing with wastes that are not covered by the Landfill Directive and the process of applying DoWCoP to define materials as ‘non waste’ would not be appropriate.

Under the MWD a “Waste facility” is defined as any area designated for the accumulation or deposit of extractive waste for given periods of time. Where the waste has been designated as such for 3 years, or more, the area will qualify as a “waste facility” regardless of the type of waste. Colliery spoil on most sites will have been in place for more than 3 years and hence it seems likely that the site becomes a waste facility regulated under the MWD.

However, as with all things to do with waste, nothing is simple and the MWD provides a couple of exclusions that could potentially apply:

Firstly, when wastes derived by the extractive industries is transported away from the mining waste facility it ceases to fall within its scope and as such falls under the regulation of the landfill directive. The location of the mining waste facility involving operations that took place before the mining waste directive was introduced might be difficult to define.

Secondly, the directive excludes areas that have been used for deposition of both mining waste and other wastes; in these circumstances both the mining waste and the other waste would be regulated by the Landfill Directive.

So, when dealing with a site such as a former colliery where wastes from the mining operations have been deposited, the poor qualified person is left with the dilemma of deciding whether she is dealing with a Mining Waste Facility or not. If the former, she cannot use the provisions of DoWCoP to re-use the site arisings if they comprise mining waste. So, what would the MWD require?

There are thirteen articles within the MWD defining the regulatory requirements, one of which is an Environmental Permit. However, an Environmental Permit is not required for those facilities that have been closed by 1 May 2008, those that stopped accepting wastes and those that will be completed by 21 December 2010. Many former extractive sites will have ceased operations before the stipulated dates but what are the implications when the materials are moved around as part of the construction project? The wastes remain extractive wastes and presumably still fall within the scope of the MWD. Should this be the case the beleaguered qualified person can look to the directive once more and see an important exception to the requirement of an Environmental Permit:

Inert Waste and Unpolluted Soil. Article 7 of the MWD (i.e. the obligation to hold a permit for a waste facility) do not apply to inert waste and unpolluted soil resulting from the prospecting, extraction, treatment and storage of mineral resources and the working of quarries, and waste resulting from the extraction, treatment and storage of peat.

• “Inert waste” is defined as “waste that does not undergo any significant physical, chemical or biological transformations. Inert waste will not dissolve, burn or otherwise physically or chemically react, biodegrade or adversely affect other matter with which it comes into contact in a way likely to give rise to environmental pollution or harm human health. The total leachability and pollutant content of the waste and the ecotoxicity of the leachate must be insignificant, and in particular not endanger the quality of surface water and/or groundwater.”

• “Unpolluted soil” is defined as “soil that is removed from the upper layer of the ground during extractive activities and that is not deemed to be polluted under the national law of the Member State where the site is located or under [EU] law”.

I think it can be argued that colliery spoil that is re-used during development comes under this definition of inert waste as it must have demonstrated that the material is suitable for use and checked whether it could burn, biodegrade or adversely affect matter it comes into contact with. It will also have been necessary to check leachability and undertaken a groundwater/surface water risk assessment.

Inert waste still comes under certain requirements of the MWD as shown in Table 1 below that I have extracted from the EA Guidance on the WMD.

Table 1

MWD Directive Requirements for Inert Wastes and Unpolluted Soil*

Environmental Permitting Guidance. The Mining Waste Directive For the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 Updated May 2010 Version 1.1. Paragraph 2.24

Article Description Requirement for inert Waste Y/N
4 General Requirements Y
5 Waste Management Plan Y
6 Major accident prevention and information N
7 Directive requirement for a permit N
8 Public participation N
9 Deposit in excavation voids Y
11(1) Management, technical development and training N
11(2) Requirements on location, construction, management, maintenance, monitoring, inspection, restoration, aftercare and record keeping For waste facilities only
11(3) Notification of events and environmental effects, implementation of emergency plans and reporting of monitoring results N
12(1-4) Closure and aftercare procedures Not required
12(5-6) Following closure, measures to control stability and minimise negative effects. Notification of events and effects, implementation of emergency plans and reporting monitoring results N
13(1-5) Requirements to prevent the deterioration of water status, soil pollution, prevent or reduce dust and gas emissions Y
13(6) Reduction of cyanide in ponds N
14 Financial Guarantees N
16 Informing other Member States N
17 Inspection prior to waste deposit N

The important conclusion from the EA Guidance is that Article 7 (The requirement for an Environmental Permit) does not apply to inert wastes and hence should the qualified person conclude that the materials fall within the scope of the MWD, they can breathe again as an Environmental Permit is not required to regulate the work.

The Articles which, nevertheless, must be complied with are:

  • Article 4: This simply states the general requirements of the directive in terms of preventing harm to human health and the Environment and the planning conditions and WMP will ensure this is complied with.
  • Article 9: This deals with the infilling of mine (surface or underground) voids.  In any event the requirements are all around ensuring stability and hence if ever voids have been infilled voids this requirement should have been complied with.
  • Article 11(2): These paragraphs deal with location, construction, management, maintenance, monitoring, inspection, restoration, aftercare and record keeping even when dealing with inert waste if it is in a waste facility.  According to the directive if waste has been stored for more than 3 years, it automatically becomes a waste facility.  That said the location, construction and management have already been dealt with.  Monitoring and inspection if required would be part of the planning permission for the new development and I presume that restoration and aftercare are all part of the development.  Record keeping could become an issue but see comments on Article 5 below.
  • Article 5: This article is the most significant for redevelopment work in that it requires preparation of a Waste Management Plan. However, looking through the requirements of the Article, all the items required in a WMP are provided in an MMP (apart of course from the name). The added advantage of the MMP is the requirement to maintain records that would fulfil the obligations under Article 11(2).

Conclusion

I suspect that many construction projects on former colliery sites may have inadvertently applied DoWCoP to materials that are excluded through paragraph 11.1. However, I do not see that these operations have been flouting the law since it is likely they have been dealing with inert waste that does not require implementation of an Environmental Permit.  Following the requirements of DoWCoP and with the onus under planning to protect Health and Safety and the Environment operations are fulfilling the obligations of the MWD albeit not directly in line with its provisions. By following DoWCoP, practitioners are providing regulators with all the information and more that could be required under the MWD.

I am sorry for not providing the excitement that my title might have offered but it seems to me that we are in the land of fairy tales.  I wonder how many more twists and turns there will be and whether “Great King Boris” can provide any easier route through this labyrinth than the “wicked witch” he thinks he is endeavouring to protect us from. Maybe this is a tale to be picked up by my children who now have children of their own . . . but probably not as fortunately the ‘sad dad’, now grandpa, has failed to pass on his enthusiasm for the subject.