Article

The IES Land Condition Symposium

- by
Tags: article Featured

The Institution of Environmental Sciences (IES) are holding Land Condition Symposium in London on the 8th March 2018.

Are you an expert practitioner, remediator, consultant, academic, researcher, or a central, regional or local government officer working in land condition? Then this event is for you.

This one-day technical symposium will focus on knowledge exchange, debate and discussion addressing topical issues at the centre of land condition.

The confirmed speakers include:
1. Claire Dickinson, Director at Geo-Environmental Matters Ltd
2. Harry Burchill, Planning Policy Officer at RTPI
3. Nicola Harries, Project Director at CL:AIRE
4. Peter Atchison, Managing Director at PAGeotechnical Ltd
5. Eric Dede, Research Engineer at University of Reading

Download the programme and see the full list of eminent speakers presenting at this event.
To book your place for the event, please click here.
Sponsorship and Exhibitor spaces are available at this event, visit the IES website for more information.

Article

AGS Ground Risk Conference: Call for Speakers

- by
Tags: Featured

The AGS is organising a conference on ground risk, which will investigate the current risks associated within the geotechnical and geoenvironmental sector.

This full day event will take place at London’s Cavendish Conference Centre on Wednesday 12th September and will be open to both members and non-members of the AGS.

If you’d like to submit a speaker proposal of geotechnical or geoenvironmental interest, please email ags@ags.org.uk before Friday 23rd February.

Article

CIRIA Events 2018

- by
Tags: Featured

CIRIA are holding the following events in 2018:

Asbestos from soil awareness – UKATA approved
This course will provide ground workers and other site operatives to deal with asbestos from soil in a safe, cost effective and legal way. The training is based on CIRIA new report C765 Asbestos in soil and made ground – good practice site guide and could be considered as ‘information, instruction and training’ or ‘awareness training’ to satisfy Regulation 10 of Control of Asbestos Regulation 2012 (CAR 2012).

7 Feb 2018 – Birmingham
20 Feb 2018 – Bristol
19 April 2018 – Glasgow
16 May 2018 – Exeter
20 June 2018 – Belfast
4 July 2018 – Kent


Training for non-licensed work for asbestos in the ground
This course is aimed at ground workers and other site operatives who manage and disturb asbestos contaminated soil (ACS) directly as part of their work (including site investigation, ground investigation etc). The training will be counted as ‘additional training’ required for non-licensed work by providing guidance in identification of asbestos contaminated materials and what to do with planned and unplanned discovery of asbestos on site.

8 Feb 2018 – Birmingham
21 Feb 2018 – Bristol
20 April 2018 – Glasgow
17 May 2018 – Exeter
21 June 2018 – Belfast
5 July 2018 – Kent

Article Safety

Change for Safety – Balfour Beatty

- by
Tags: Featured

Balfour Beatty have created a video called ‘Change for Safety’.

Click here to view the video.

If you have any safety alerts you think AGS members would benefit from please forward them to the AGS Secretariat at ags@ags.org.uk. Please note Safety Alerts provided to the AGS will be shared among all members and made available on the website for visitors.

Article

AGS Members’ Day 2018: sponsorship opportunities

- by
Tags: AGS Members' Day Featured

We’re pleased to announce that AGS Members’ Day is taking place on Wednesday 11th April 2018 at the National Motorcycle Museum in Birmingham.

This full day seminar is open to both members and non-members of the AGS and sees approximately 150 geotechnical and geoenvironmental consultants, contractors, solicitors and insurance company representatives in attendance. The day features summaries from each of our seven working groups, looking at the work they have accomplished over the past 12 months, and also a series of external presentations from industry experts on topics relevant to our industry, such as a client’s view on site investigation, sustainable remediation, EC7 and communicated geosciences.

This year we have three sponsorship opportunities available;

PLATINUM SPONSORSHIP*
• Company logo on each attending delegates lanyard
• Half page advert in AGS Magazine**
• Entry for two delegates into the event
• A designated area (6ft x 2.5ft) to exhibit company initiatives, research and software. This exhibition space can also showcase marketing materials, literature and banners
• Company logo on the event PowerPoint presentation holding slide
• Company logo and overview on the event programme
• Company overview on the AGS website
• Two announcements of your company’s involvement on the AGS Twitter page
• Announcement of your company’s involvement on the AGS’ LinkedIn page
*One package available only
**terms and conditions apply

GOLD SPONSORSHIP PACKAGE
• Entry for two delegates into the event
• A designated area (6ft x 2.5ft) to exhibit company initiatives, research and software. This exhibition space can also showcase marketing materials, literature and banners
• Company logo on the event PowerPoint presentation holding slide
• Company logo and overview on the event programme
• Company overview on the AGS website
• Announcement of your company’s involvement on the AGS Twitter page
• Announcement of your company’s involvement on the AGS’ LinkedIn page

SILVER SPONSORSHIP PACKAGE
• Entry for one delegate into the event
• Company logo on event PowerPoint Presentation holding slide
• Company logo on the event programme
• Company overview on the AGS website
• Announcement of your company’s involvement on the AGS Twitter page

Special rates for members of the AGS apply.

For price points and further information please email Caroline Kratz on ags@ags.org.uk

Article Contaminated Land

Q&A with Chris Swainston, AGS Contaminated Land WG Member

- by
Tags: Chris Swainston

Chris Swainston BSc. (Hons), PGCE, CGeol, FGS
Principal Geo-environmental Engineer
Geotechnics Limited

I am currently the principal geo-environmental engineer for Geotechnics Limited based in Coventry. I have been in the industry for over 20 years now with specialisms in contaminated land, asbestos and site investigation. I am a member of the AGS contaminated land working group, BGS contaminated land group, SoBRA, and chair the BSI EH/4 soil quality committee, responsible for (amongst other standards) BS10175. I am a chartered geologist as well as being a CGeol/CSci scrutineer and mentor. I have undertaken many interesting investigations over the years including Buncefield Oil Depot, Prospect Park, the Millennium Site and Sandridge to name but a few. Current duties at Geotechnics include responsibility for ISO9001, ISO14001 (qualified auditor) and in-house training.

What or who inspired you to join the geotechnical industry?
To be honest I didn’t even know you could do what I have actually done as a geologist when I joined the industry in back in 1994, I had some vague information from Portsmouth Polytechnic (as they then were) when the third year were used as guinea pigs for some of the materials that became parts of the first ever environmental geology degree, so I guess it would be that.

What does a typical day entail?
I am not sure there is a typical day in this industry, and certainly not in my position given the many hats I wear. I could be out on site observing and recording, organising a project, sampling for a client, training, project managing, invoicing, writing reports, ISO14001 auditing, advising clients and staff regarding waste, asbestos and environmental issues. About the only typical thing is the morning e-mail triage.

Are there any projects which you’re particularly proud to have been a part of?
I am not sure proud is the word exactly, but it was very interesting to be part of the Millennium site team, working in London is a so different from the rest of the UK and big projects always have their own unique challenges. Buncefield was surreal as I was there 3 days after it was put out and it was like walking into a black and white movie with ash covering everything around you and all the people evacuated, the lack of colour and sound was almost scary. Sandridge was the first part 2A and I was heavily involved in the water sampling for the project over several years. More recently, digging in Shakespeare’s back garden to determine the depth of the made ground as part of the Nash House museum redevelopment was one job I certainly like having on my CV.

What are the most challenging aspects of your role?
The most challenging aspects of my role are probably the odd nature of the questions you are sometimes asked. As the environmental, asbestos and waste in-house go-to-guy, I can get all sorts of questions for example what are the possible effects of drilling rigs on spawning salmon in Scotland (probably very little), how to tell the difference between a water and common vole (tail to body ratio), what is the difference between a waste characterisation and a WAC (both are required for disposal to landfill) and why these things make a difference to how we need to undertake our site investigations.

What AGS Working Group(s) are you a Member of and what are your current focuses?
I am currently a member of the Contaminated Land Working Group, but I have also recently been liaising with the lab group regarding updating of some of the AGS guidance on sampling in response to changes in ISO guidance. This is probably going to lead to the re-formation of the sampling sub-group that created many of the original documents. This is my current focus along with a potential update of the AGS cover systems guidance, which I covered in more detail in a presentation at the recent EXPO conference. I was also previously the liaison with the AGS Data Format Group in regards to environmental aspects of the format during the production of the AGS 3.1 extension and chair of the asbestos sub-group.

What do you enjoy most about being an AGS Member?
Meeting and interacting with fellow professionals to promote good practice through the production of authoritative guidance for the industry. The conferences are also very good.

What do you find beneficial about being an AGS Member?
Being able to be a part of this activity.

Why do you feel the AGS is important to the industry?
The AGS is vital to keep everyone in the industry in the loop regarding changes to standards, good practice, legal issues and guidance and to provide a mechanism for the industry to get together, share and promote good practice.

What changes would you like to see implemented in the geotechnical industry?
Oddly I would like to see day rate become standard, meterage can be somewhat self-defeating when what you often really need as an environmental specialist is to have a very close and good look at what is happening on challenging sites, where you can be frequently starting and stopping and may have to adjust to ever changing circumstances and contamination issues.

You represented the AGS at the Contamination Expo conference in September at ExCeL. What did your presentation outline and what did spectators learn?
My presentation outlined the contention that an update of the cover systems document (co-produced by AGS, BRE, NHBC and written by RSK back in 2004) was a good idea or not. Basically the presentation outlined the history of the document, its key points, a summary of its use over time, suggestions in terms of what could be done with the document and asking the audience if they knew about it, if it was still being used, what should be done, what could be done and if it had a place in modern remediation assessment. My argument is that it may still have a function in relation to sustainability and could also be well used as an option for low levels of asbestos contamination. Whilst this is not necessarily sufficient to argue for a wholesale re-write of the whole document, it may be sufficient for the AGS to consider producing an update sowing how it may still be used effectively in certain circumstances. I have fed the comments and responses back from this and other presentations to the AGSCLWG and we hope to be in a position to produce this new document shortly.

Article News Business Practice Contaminated Land Data Management Executive Laboratories Loss Prevention Safety

AGS Magazine – November/December issue

- by
Tags: AGS Magazine Featured November/December

The Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists are pleased to announce the launch of their new bi-monthly publication; AGS Magazine. To view the magazine click here.

This free, bimonthly publication focuses on geotechnics, engineering geology and geoenvironmental engineering as well as the work and achievements of the AGS.

There are a number of excellent articles in this month’s debut issue including;

  • Laboratory Proficiency Testing – Page 6
  • PCBs: What are they? – Page 10
  • AGS Geotechnical Data Conference Review – Page 14
  • Q&A with Chris Swainston from Geotechnics – Page 17
  • AGS Guidance: Ground Investigation Reports – Page 28
  • Standards Update: November 2017 – Page 30

Advertising opportunities are available within future issues of the publication. To view rates and opportunities please view our media pack by clicking HERE.

If you have a news story, article, case study or event which you’d like to tell our editorial team about please email ags@ags.org.uk. Articles should act as opinion pieces and not directly advertise a company. Please note that the publication of editorial and advertising content is subject to the discretion of the editorial board.

Article

AGS Magazine Media Pack

- by
Tags: AGS Magazine Featured Media Pack

The Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists are pleased to announce the launch of their new bi-monthly publication; AGS Magazine.

Launching in November 2017, the magazine will focus on geotechnics, engineering geology and geoenvironmental engineering as well as the work and achievements of the AGS. The publication will also look at a range of topical issues, insights and concerns, whilst publishing new guidance notes, working group activities and provide information on upcoming conferences and industry seminars.

With over 5,400 subscribers, the audience demographic includes industry professionals including practitioners, chartered specialists, senior decision makers and managing directors.

Advertising opportunities are available within future issues of the publication. To view rates and opportunities please view our media pack by clicking here.

If you have a news story, article, case study or event which you’d like to tell our editorial team about please email ags@ags.org.uk. Articles should act as opinion pieces and not directly advertise a company. Please note that the publication of editorial and advertising content is subject to the discretion of the editorial board.

Article

PCBs: What are they, and which Suite do I need for my Site Investigation?

- by
Tags: article Featured

By David Bowen, Senior Chemistry Supervisor at TerraTek

There are 209 Poly-Chlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) congeners, named in simple terms using BZ numbers, ranging from BZ#1 (2-Chlorobiphenyl) to BZ#209 (2,2’,3,3’,4,4’,5,5’,6,6’-Decachlorobiphenyl).
Of these 209 congeners however, only the EC7 and WHO12 congeners are routinely tested for by commercial environmental testing laboratories. So why only these 18 congeners (one congener, BZ#118, appears in both suites) you may ask? And what about the other 191? Furthermore, which of these PCB suites would be the most suitable for your site investigation?
Poly-Chlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) are Biphenyl organic compounds, C12H10, with the hydrogen atom substituted by a Chlorine atom. There can be from one to ten substituted atoms, C12H10-nCln (where n= 1 to 10). Depending on the number and position of the Chlorine atom/s around the Biphenyl, denotes which congener the PCB is, and named accordingly.


Figure 1. PCB structure

Commercial production of PCB mixes (e.g. Aroclors) began in the early 1930’s up until the 1970-80’s when they were phased out due to environmental concerns. PCBs are particularly useful for their electrical insulation properties, low flammability, and stability. Subsequently, they were used in transformer oils, coolants, paints, and flame retardants, to name just a few. Unfortunately, also due to these properties, they pose a significant risk to the environment, and were classified as one of the initial 12 Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) under the Stockholm convention1. According to the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) 2 however, only 130 of the 209 PCB congeners have been reported in commercial Aroclor mixes and environmental samples.
PCBs can be sub-divided into two categories; the coplanar and non-coplaner congeners.
The co-planer congeners either have a single or no Chlorine atoms substituted for a Hydrogen in the ortho position (figure 1. A single or no Cl in position 2, 2’, 6 or 6’) on the phenyl rings. They are dioxin like in character, there are twelve of them, and are recognised by the World Health Organisation (WHO) as being used to determine Toxicity Equivalent Factors (TEFs) in relation to the most toxic dioxin 2,3,7,8-Tertrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD). Health risks include reproductive and developmental toxicity, and / or immune suppression.3
The non-coplaner congeners have more than one Chlorine atom substituted for a Hydrogen in the ortho position on the phenyl rings. These congeners are considered to be less toxic, as they do not bind to the aryl hydrocarbon receptor which causes the health effects associated with the dioxin like PCBs. However, they are still toxic, and have shown to elicit neurological, endocrine and immunological effects, and are 4% more abundant in soil and 5% more in food, than the dioxin-like PCBs.3
So which PCB suite would you select for a site investigation?


Figure 2. Site investigation

A WHO-12 PCB suite is used to monitor the TEFs of dioxin-like-PCB compounds for a site investigation of human health risk assessments. If a site analysis was restricted to only the WHO-12 PCBs however, it is worth remembering that they are less abundant in the environment than the non-dioxin-like PCBs, and only make up by weight <4% of the commercial Aroclor mixtures produced. Therefore, even if a negative result for the WHO-12 PCBs is received, the site could still potentially contain a significant amount of the non-dioxin-like congeners. The PCB 7 suite was initially selected by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) as a PCB screen for monitoring biota and sediment samples, and became a mandatory requirement of the OSPAR Co-ordinated Environmental Monitoring Programme (CEMP).4 Subsequently, this became the recommended suite by the European Union Community Bureau of Reference for monitoring PCBs, and was also specified and a limit assigned in the UKs Landfill Directive for Waste Acceptance Criteria. These seven PCBs were selected as indicators as they make up ~20% by weight of PCBs in commercial mixtures3, they have a wide chlorination range, and one dioxin-like congener is included (BZ118). They are more likely to be found in environmental samples and at higher concentrations compared to the WHO-12.
Figure 3. A PCB 7 suite is routinely requested for sites containing Electrical sub-stations and transformers.

To cover all the PCBs present, an Aroclor matching total PCB suite could be performed. This covers all PCBs present and are quantified against the nearest matching Aroclor standard, although does not identify individual congeners and LODs are very high compared to the PCB7 and WHO12 screens.
So which suite should you select? Ultimately, the historical use of the site and the subsequent risk assessment of it would dictate the choice. Regardless of this however, the advantages of requesting a PCB-7 and a WHO-12 together cannot be underestimated in providing a full indication of the PCB contamination present at trace levels if any. Alternatively, if only a PCB-7 suite was requested, and the dioxin-like-congener (BZ#118) was found, an additional WHO-12 PCB test would be advantageous in assisting in the risk assessment process.

References:
1. Stockholm Convention, http://chm.pops.int/TheConvention/ThePOPs/The12InitialPOPs/tabid/296/Default.aspx
2. European Food Safety Authority, ‘Results of the monitoring of non dioxin-like PCBs in food and feed’, EFSA Journal 2010, 8, 1701; http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/1701.pdf
3. RSC, Environmental Chemistry Group, Bulletin, January 2014
4. ICES, Techniques in Marine Environmental Sciences, Determination of PCBs in Sediment and Biota, No.53, July 2013

This article was published in the November/December issue of the AGS magazine. Click here to view the full magazine.

Article Laboratories

Explaining Laboratory Proficiency Testing

- by
Tags: AGS Magazine article Featured

by John Masters, Director of Geolabs

The use of Proficiency testing and Interlaboratory comparison schemes is an invaluable tool for laboratories to assure the quality of their test and calibration results. Often seen as simply a necessity to satisfy an accrediting body, the benefits of participation in proficiency testing and interlaboratory comparison schemes are greatly underrated.

The ILAC publication ‘Benefits for Laboratories participating in Proficiency Testing Programs’ highlights that ‘the basic purpose of proficiency testing is to assess performance of laboratories for their conduct of specific test, measurements or calibrations. Many laboratories operate in isolation from other laboratories and do not have ongoing opportunities to compare their data with others. Without such opportunities there are risks that a laboratory’s data may have errors, biases or significant differences compared to similar laboratories.

Proficiency testing provides an opportunity to undertake such comparisons and to have an independent appraisal of the laboratory’s data compared to reference values (or other performance criteria) or to the performance of similar laboratories. The results from such participation provide laboratory managers with either a confirmation that the laboratory’s performance is satisfactory or an alert that investigation of potential problems within the laboratory is required’.

As defined, Proficiency Testing (PT) is generally run by an independent third party and allows laboratories to objectively monitor the reliability of their test results by the use of standardised test materials, whereas Interlaboratory comparisons (ILC’s), when performed in accordance with ISO/IEC 17043:2010, require the measurement or test of test items in predetermined conditions by two or more laboratories.

All laboratories accredited to ISO/IEC 17025(E) : 2005 are required to have procedures in place to monitor the validity of test results (and calibrations) undertaken.
Clause 5.9.1 of ISO/IEC 17025(E) : 2005 states that:
‘The laboratory shall have quality control procedures for monitoring the validity of tests and calibrations undertaken…. This monitoring shall be planned and reviewed and may include, but shall not be limited to;
a) Use of certified reference materials
b) Participation on interlaboratory comparison or proficiency testing programmes
c) Replicate testing
d) Retesting of retained items…’

Whilst ISO/IEC 17025(E) does not stipulate a mandatory requirement for accredited laboratories to participate in proficiency testing, it recommends that laboratories participate in quality assurance schemes such as interlaboratory comparison or proficiency testing.

However, Accrediting Bodies (UKAS for the United Kingdom) ARE required to ensure that ‘its accredited laboratories participate in proficiency testing or other comparison programs, where available and appropriate, and that corrective actions are carried out when necessary’(clause 7.15.3 of ISO/IEC 17011:2004).

The UKAS policy on proficiency testing is specified within UKAS Technical Publication TPS47 – UKAS Policy on Participation in Proficiency Testing, which states that:
‘4.1 all accredited laboratories shall participate in PT/ILCs where such schemes are available and relevant to their scope of accreditation’.

In August 2013, AGS produced a Position Paper (http://www.ags.org.uk/item/laboratory-proficiency-testing/), in which the AGS highlighted the necessity for proficiency testing to promote best practice and improve professional standards in the geotechnical & geo-environmental laboratory community.

Geolabs Limited has been running a Proficiency and Interlaboratory Comparison Testing Scheme (PICTS) since 2005. The Scheme is run every other year although there have been some years where ‘mini-schemes’ have also been run to accommodate certain specific tests and requirements.

The 2017 Scheme was limited to UK laboratories only, initially for 16 BS1377 geotechnical and chemical tests. A further 8 tests were requested for inclusion, but only 4 attracted sufficient interest to be included. Therefore 20 tests were included in the 2017 scheme.

51 laboratories fully participated in the 2017 Scheme. Each participating laboratory was provided with a unique Participant ID, known only to them to maintain confidentiality at all times.
Four types of standardised material were used in the Scheme, from sandy silty clay to very sandy gravel, all prepared from documented procedures before being sent to participating laboratories.

When all participant test data is received, each participating laboratory is provided with a report with tabular and/or graphical reporting formats, and statistical analysis of each test with the Participant ID being their unique laboratory number.

The 2017 scheme report will be issued once data from all of the participants has been received, collated and analysed. It is envisaged that the report will be issued to all participants, UKAS and to Ground Engineering magazine by end November.

Participation in Proficiency Testing and Interlaboratory Comparison schemes is not just an accreditation requirement, it is essential for any laboratory looking to demonstrate technical competence and to provide confidence in the quality, reliability and integrity of the test data they produce.

This article was included in the November/December 2017 issue of the AGS magazine
Click here to view the full magazine

Article

Informal Review of 2nd generation Eurocodes – prEN 1990 and prEN 1997-1

- by
Tags: article Featured

Structural Eurocodes are being developed into second generation of the documents that are expected to be published soon after 2020. The first drafts of the new EN 1990 and EN 1997-1 are now available for review and informal comment. The window of opportunity to review and comment is very short.

An introduction to the changes in the codes and the requirements for comments will be presented in a webinar on 30th November at 14:00. Details can be found here. All geotechnical design engineers are urged to participate in this process to ensure the UK voice is heard and that practice is improved. AGS liaison should be directed via the Geotechnical Working Group.

Comments should be entered into the appropriate comments tables. Comments should be constructive and will only be accepted if a clear proposed revision is included. Completed comment sheets should be returned to AGS at ags@ags.org.uk by 12th January 2018.

Please find the first drafts below:
EN 1990
EN 1997-1

Please find the comments tables below:
EN 1990 Comments Table
EN 1997-1 Comments Table