Article Laboratories

On Stony Ground

- by
Tags: analysis laboratories

How standardised is MCerts analysis in stony samples? 

Despite articles such as that by Mark Perrin (Ground Engineering, April 2007), many engineers, consultants and regulators still appear to be largely ignorant of the differences in soil sample preparation methods between laboratories and the effect this can have on the results produced.  Many assume that the MCerts accreditation commonly required by Local Authorities and the Environment Agency has ‘standardised’ laboratory analysis such that the reported contaminant concentration will be that of the soil tested without any significant variance.  Unfortunately, whilst the MCerts scheme focuses on quality procedures to ensure repeatability within an individual laboratory, it does not standardise the test method itself, and thus variations between laboratories remain.

The MCerts scheme requires comparison trials between labs to be carried out on a standard homogeneous matrix, which generally produces a high degree of comparability between laboratories; unfortunately most soils that are sent for analysis tend not to be like this homogeneous matrix.  Typically most analysis is carried out on samples of near surface made ground which is by its very nature largely heterogeneous, and usually with a high stone content.  As an extract can not be produced from the stones, sample preparation including either grinding of the stones to a fine powder or excluding them such that the sub-sampling uncertainty can be reduced or eliminated.  However, the methods adopted to achieve this are by no means standardised between laboratories.

How do laboratory methods vary?
All commercial laboratories with MCerts accreditation for PAHs and toxic metals were asked about their sample preparation methods. Responses were received from 18 of these laboratories with 17 being accredited for metals and 17 for PAH.  A surprising number of laboratory managers were unsure of the sample preparation method and had to check their procedures before being able to reply; however the responses received are summarised below;

Metals

No of labs using this method

Percent of labs that responded
Dry and crush to less than 0.5mm

8

47%
Remove stones greater than 2mm diameter

2

12%
Remove Stones Greater than 10mm diameter

6

35%
Remove all ‘inert’ stones

1

6%

 

For metals the main difference appears to be whether the stones are removed or are crushed and when removed what size stones are removed. However, with PAH a greater range of sample preparation methods were apparent;

 

PAH

No of labs using this method

Percent of labs that responded
Test as received sample but avoiding stones

8

47%
Dry and crush to less than 0.5mm

4

24%
Remove Stones Greater than 2mm diameter

2

12%
Remove Stones Greater than 4.75mm diameter

1

6%
Remove Stones Greater than 10mm diameter

2

12%

 

Of those labs that dried the samples, two did so at 28 oC, five at 30 oC, one at 35 oC and one at 37 oC.  Variation in the extraction solvent was also apparent as set out below.

 

Extraction solvent for PAH analysis

No of labs using this method

Percent of labs that responded
Dichloromethane (DCM)

13

76%
DCM & Hexane

1

6%
Hexane:Acetone

2

12%
Pentane

1

6%

 

This variation has been further complicated recently, as during the recent recession, the partial shut down of the car industry reduced the demand for foam rubber, a bi-product of the production of which is DCM.  Therefore the price of DCM rose significantly and several laboratories switched from using pure DCM to a mix of DCM and hexane or acetone or even hexane:acetone:triethylamine.  Once the car industry recovered and the price of DCM fell these laboratories reverted back to using pure DCM.

What are the effects of variation in preparation methods?

In a soil where the contaminant concentration is distributed evenly between the matrix and the stone content, removing or crushing the stones would clearly have no effect on analysis results.  However, where the metallic contaminants are expected to be concentrated in the coarser particles, as in a slag or clinker, crushing of the stones will produce a higher contaminant concentration than would be produced in a laboratory that removes the stones.  Similarly, as the bulk of the made ground which is present in garden areas that have been used for a considerable period will have been subject to bonfires and the active digging in of ash, part burnt fragments of coal or timber are common.  Such relatively coarse fragments could be expected to be a source of PAH (including benzo(a)pyrene) and therefore a sample which was crushed prior to analysis could be expected to yield a higher concentration than one from which the larger particles had been removed. Conversely, where the burning of painted wood has resulted in elevated lead concentrations in a fine ash, or where soot has been dug into the soil, the presence of natural stones in the sample will act to ‘dilute’ the measured concentration if they are crushed during the analysis rather than removed..  However where the weight of the stones removed is back-calculated into the reported result this effect should be eliminated.

In addition to the effect of stone content, where a sample is dried the variation in drying time and temperature will surely have an effect upon the more volatile compounds such as naphthalene which could be lost to some extent, especially where the sample is dried overnight at 37oC.  The reported naphthalene concentration of a dried and crushed sample would thus be expected to be lower than that of a sample tested in the as received condition.

The variation in extraction efficiency of the different solvents and solvent mixes would also be expected to induce variability.

So which is the right method?
Unfortunately, there is no right or wrong method of analysis, as the applicability of each method is dependent on the use to which the results are to be put, which is beyond the control of the laboratory.  The onus therefore ,has to be placed upon the consultant scheduling the testing and interpreting the results to use an appropriate method.

For example; waste classification is based upon a hazard assessment and the analysis is required to be representative of the whole load being disposed of, and thus a dried and crushed approach may be applicable.  However, for human health a risk based assessment is adopted and thus consideration needs to be given to the likely exposure pathways.

For Benzo(a)Pyrene some 56% of the total exposure for the residential land use arises from the ingestion of soil and indoor dust.  As soil Pica has not been included as an exposure route in the CLEA model, the bulk of the ingestion of soil will be from accidental ingestion from hand to mouth contact and as such larger particles are unlikely to be involved.  Similarly, dermal contact, which amounts to 36% of the total exposure for the residential land use is unlikely to be significantly affected by the larger particles which will have a far lower surface area to volume ratio.  Therefore, for a Benzo(a)Pyrene risk assessment, an analysis of the fine particles following sieving and the exclusion of the stone content from the calculated results would appear to be far more appropriate.  This would also be the case with the majority of the PAHs and toxic metals.

Conclusions
Engineers and consultants scheduling laboratory analyses need to be aware of the sample preparation method that is to be adopted by the laboratory and the effect that this will have on the results for the specific soil which is being tested.  It would also be helpful if laboratories published a basic summary of the sample preparation method along with the results to aid those interpreting the results and to assist where comparisons between different sets of data on the same site are being carried out, be it by different laboratories or by the same laboratory over a prolonged period.  Furthermore, when the chemical analyses indicate that the soil in a garden contains contaminant concentrations close to or a little in excess of the adopted threshold values, it would be worth considering the effect of the sample preparation method and whether retesting a sieved sample may produce a more appropriate concentration to compare with the adopted threshold, considering the assumed critical exposure pathways.

Mike Plimmer
GEA Associates

 

Article Contaminated Land Laboratories

BS 10175 Updated

- by
Tags: contamination Geoenvironmental Geotechnical risks

BS 10175:2011 (Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites – Code of Practice) was published in March 2011. It is much improved compared to the 2001 version both in content and the way that guidance and information is presented. It meets the initial brief for the revision and has also addressed a number of other issues (see Box). There have been many changes and those familiar with the old version should not assume that they know what the new version says. It must be read, pondered on, and digested.
Unfortunately, there is no reason to expect those who ignored the old version to pay any more attention to the new one unless induced to do so by regulators and informed potential clients. Contamination has been an issue for at least 35 years (the Greater London Council first published guidance in 1976) but we still see reports that would have been regarded as poor thirty years ago. The bottom end is as bad as it ever was. Some reports proudly announce that they have been done in accordance with BS 5930 with no mention of BS10175 thus revealing the writer’s ignorance of good practice.
There is a place for well crafted combined geotechnical and geoenvironmental investigations that properly address both aspects. However, there remain some geotechnical specialists who still think that a few samples taken from random depths from a few random locations and analysed for an unjustified suite of potential contaminants constitutes an adequate investigation for contamination. I should add here, that when I have checked, the culprits have not been AGS members – and that in itself says something about them.
PPS23 (Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control – Annex 2: Development on Land Affected by Contamination) is about to be withdrawn. This currently indicates that site investigations for contamination should be in accordance with BS10175:2011. It seems likely to be replaced by a single phrase in the simplified planning guidance that the government is intending to introduce. This will make it all the more important for AGS to continue to try to educate both its members and clients about good practice.

 

BS10175:2011 What has changed?

BS10175  gives recommendations for, and guidance on the investigation of land potentially affected by contamination and land with naturally elevated concentrations of potentially harmful substances, to determine or manage any risks.

The brief for the revision was to:

  • align BS 10175 with International Standards (e.g. ISO 10381 series) especially those adopted as British Standards
  • update in relation to legislation and authoritative guidance
  • update technically
  • include additional guidance on sampling uncertainty
  • extend guidance on application of on-site analytical methods (align with draft BS ISO 12404)

All these issues have been properly addressed during the revision. In addition, a number of other significant “general” changes have been made:

  • clearer separation between “Normative text” (i.e. guidance) and informative text
  • clarification of some terminology, e.g. “contamination”
  • emphasise on the importance of early consultation with regulators and including provision of information on the role of local authority “contaminated land officers”
  • tightened reporting requirements
  • introduction of  a requirement concerning the qualification of drillers etc. (as in CP 5930 as amended 2010).

The importance of the conceptual model is emphasised and the process of investigation is characterised as one that seeks to reduce the uncertainty in the conceptual model.

The definition of “contamination” has been amended to:

  • Presence of a substance or agent, as a result of human activity, in, on, or under land, which has the potential to cause harm or cause pollution.

There is no assumption in this definition that harm results from the presence of contamination.
The change aligns BS10175 more closely with the definition in “BS ISO 11074 Soil quality – Vocabulary” and helps to make it clear that the definition in Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 has only a narrow application. It should also help to discourage the use of the oxymoron “natural contamination”.

Requiring Planning Conditions or similar regulatory requirements to be noted in the introduction to reports will, hopefully, discipline consultants to get proper briefing from their clients and to consult regulators when they are required to do so (the potential benefits of consultation with regulators when there is no formal requirement is also emphasised). It will be clearer whether regulatory concerns have been addressed and proper consultations carried out.

 

Article Contaminated Land Laboratories

UKWIR – GUIDANCE FOR THE SELECTION OF WATER SUPPLY PIPES TO BE USED IN BROWNFIELD SITES

- by
Tags: analysis brownfield contaminated investigation laboratories

Peter Boyd, AECOM Limited and Neil Parry, Geotechnical Engineering Limited

The UK Water Industry Research (UKWIR) has produced this document to replace the heavily criticised 2002 WRAS guidance on water supply pipe materials for contaminated land. Unfortunately there remain several similar problems with the new document. It has been produced by UKWIR with the footnote “Promoting Collaborative Research” but there does not appear to have been any collaboration or consultation with practitioners in the industry. As a result the document fails to reflect commonly accepted industry practice and terminology.

The basis of the document is highly conservative, for example making reference to identifying whether “any chemical may have ever been on a site” and that “samples should be collected at a frequency and depth that will identify any contamination”.  Although it rightly advocates a risk based approach to sampling and assessment many of the recommendations ignore this premise and current guidance, with the end result likely to be overdesign and significantly increased costs for end users.

The document was recently revised, where some of the initial errors were corrected, unfortunately several errors remain and the opportunity to gain widespread acceptance was missed.

The responsibility for the selection of supply pipes is confused between the Developer, Self Lay Organisation (SLO) and Designer.  The responsibility for the production of the crucial Site Assessment Report (SAR) is not clear between the “Developer” or the “Designer” without considering whether they have the necessary contaminated land expertise.  Guidance such as the new Eurocodes define competence roles and from an industry perspective it’s yet another missed opportunity to give some further recognition to the SiLC qualification. It seems to be aimed at the layman but also advocates a very wide ranging and unusual range of laboratory implying the user has a detailed knowledge of soil sampling, preservation and laboratory testing. It is also unfortunate that 30 years after the first edition of BS5930 the document blurs the distinction between site investigation and ground investigation.

Desk Study
The document provides some good general guidance on establishing previous site use and the potential for contamination but insufficient information or reference is provided for a general user to adequately complete this.  It suggests that the findings should be summarised on a map to show current and historic land use but show a level of detail at a scale which would not be possible in most practical instances. implying that the authors have not actually performed this exercise with real data or thought about the preparation of a robust conceptual model, which is the basis for most contaminated land assessment.

The document suggests that the Local Authority may request an SAR as part of the planning process.  There is no recognition of the fact that such an assessment could and perhaps should be incorporated into the routine pre-development desk study, intrusive ground investigation and interpretative reporting process.

Investigation
When looking at investigation the application of photoionization detector (PID) screening is meaningless without further guidance. The “suitable survey pattern” is not defined and ignores the shortcomings of PID readings. The extent of suggested PID testing could also be onerous in most circumstance.

The soil sampling section refers to an unspecified “suitable survey pattern” which is easily confused with the PID screening.  Although it recommends the use of BS10175 for more detailed information on the design of a sampling plan no specific information on sampling for proposed services is included. It makes reference to taking “a spadeful” and the use of a “plastic bag” for samples which may be inappropriate and ignore the complexities of sampling.  Investigation and sampling are assumed to be undertaken via trial pits (likely to be machine dug to achieve the recommended depths) which would be difficult in an urban situation where numerous existing services are present and may not present the best method for obtaining the best samples, particularly for groundwater.  It suggests that if groundwater is present within 1m (or 2m in summer) of the base of the intended trench then a water sample should be taken from “a suitably completed narrow borehole” but establishing groundwater depth may be difficult.

Chemical Analysis
One of the most onerous parts of the recommendations is the imposition of a mandatory analytical suite to be undertaken on all samples.  Despite the fact that a desk study and ground investigation has been undertaken, including PID screening for VOCs, it appears that there is a limited choice for the user of the document in respect of what testing is required. The suite is far from routine with several determinands not generally carried out by any of the commercial laboratories in the UK on soils. To cover the lists as provided would probably cost in excess of £300 per sample.  Notably only organic contaminants are considered with the absence of inorganics such as arsenic.

Confusion extends to the proposed testing suites. The extended VOC suite (by GCMS) contains many non VOCs such as Benzo(a)pyrene and propylene glycol, explosives such as nitroglycerine and nitrotoluene (which are analysed by HPLC), Nitrohydrochloric acid (Aqua Regia a mixture of HCL and nitric acid which again cannot be analysed as a VOC) and Naphtha which is petroleum terminology for an ill defined distillate. There are misspelled chemicals such as “Mesityl” oxide and duplicated compounds such as methyl chloroform (which is 1,1,1 TCE) and Monochlorobenzene which is Chlorobenzene.

Other suites contain similar errors. Petroleum ether is incorrectly listed under ethers. Under mineral oil the document contains a turpenoid, a plasticiser, a flavour, a fatty acid and fuming sulphuric acid with no mention of mineral oil C5-C10, C11-C20 and C21-C40 listed in the “mandatory analytical suite”. A random list of chemicals is listed under Conductivity, Redox and pH including a vitamin, food preservatives and a range of compounds that would either not be found or could not be determined by routine analyses.

The simplistic approach to the determination of redox and resistivity in disturbed samples also causes some concern. This should at least reference BS 1377 Part 3:1990 and mention the benefits of in-situ measurements. Other soil conditions, not necessarily associated with a brownfield site, may also need to be examined for classification, for example “Wetness Class” which, although are not directly related to contamination, are used in the examination of sites for existing or proposed ductile iron pipes.

In relation to chemical testing reference is made to detection limits – but no discussion on how these limits were arrived at is included. These are set at “at least 10 times lower that the screening values identified” which appears to be arbitrary.

Specification of Water Supply Pipes
The final part of the document, as expected, relates to the process of specification of pipes.  It provides a comprehensive list of standards and guidance for each of the options including ductile iron, steel, polyethylene (PE), PE Barrier, PVC and copper.  Further undefined terms which will have a major effect on the specification are included such as “light chemical contamination”

Unfortunately some of the chemistry in this part is also misleading. It gives a conversion from EC to resistivity, which is not applicable to soils as it does not take into account natural moisture content, compaction, voids or the benefit of in-situ measurements.  Redox is used as a criteria without proper reference to BS1377 or acknowledging the problems likely to be encountered with disturbed samples.

Once all of the results of the extended testing have been received, individual chemicals are summed in groups, which appears to be highly questionable considering the differences between each of them.  Further mistakes are noted on the Pipe Selection Table 3.1, below which is provided to make a final selection, notably with disagreements between these figures and those in F.4 (Derivation of ‘data-supported threshold values’ for PE and PVC).  In this table there would be no requirement for any analysis if Barrier Pipe (PE-Al-PE) is used as it passes on all counts.  It is felt that the selection of barrier pipe for all sites will be a frequently exercised option as this is suitable for all conditions, it would also negate the need for any of the desk study, analysis, site assessment and pipe selection process covered in the rest of the document.  A statement that “barrier pipes should be used for all brownfield sites” would make the whole of this document redundant.

Pipe material

All threshold concentrations are in mg/kg

Parameter group

PE

PVC

Barrier pipe
(PE-Al-PE)

Wrapped Steel

Wrapped Ductile Iron

Copper
 

1

 Extended VOC suite by purge
and trap or head space
and GC-MS with TIC

0.5

0.125

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass
1a + BTEX + MTBE

0.1

0.03

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass
 

2

 SVOCs TIC by purge and trap or
head space
and GC-MS with TIC (aliphatic
and aromatic C5 – C10)

2

1.4

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass
2e + Phenols

2

0.4

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass
2f + Cresols and chlorinated
   phenols

2

0.04

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass
3 Mineral oil C11-C20

10

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass
4 Mineral oil C21-C40

500

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass
 

5

 Corrosive (Conductivity, Redox
and pH)

Pass

Pass

Pass

Corrosive if pH < 7
and conductivity
> 400μS/cm

Corrosive if pH < 5 , Eh
not neutral and
conductivity > 400μS/cm

Corrosive if
pH < 5 or > 8
and Eh
positive
Specific suite identified as relevant following Site Investigation
2a Ethers

0.5

1

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass
2b Nitrobenzene

0.5

0.4

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass
2c Ketones

0.5

0.02

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass
2d Aldehydes

0.5

0.02

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass
6 Amines

Fail

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Table 3.1: Pipe selection table

Conclusions

Although the document recommends a staged process of desk study, investigation, assessment and specification there are several areas where it is far from satisfactory.  Lack of suitable detail, ignorance of current guidance and an unwieldy and expensive approach to chemical analysis has made the process of selecting suitable pipe materials almost impossible.

Given the potential complexity and cost of the investigation and analysis to fulfil the requirements of the document it is likely that developers and specifiers will often take the simpler approach of always using barrier pipes in brownfield sites when there is any possibility of contamination.  This will be the case in most existing domestic plots and extensions (where the presence of a garage or garden shed would lead to the onerous investigation procedure) and may in turn lead to barrier pipes being unnecessarily specified.  It is also possible that the replacement of lead water pipes will be prevented by the higher costs caused by following this guidance.

We would recommend that the document goes through a further period of consultation including commercial laboratories, consultants and industry groups (such as EIC, NHBC and AGS).  The limitation of desk studies and PID screening should be added and more guidance and reference on the investigation, preparation of a conceptual model and provision of competent personnel given.  A more flexible approach to analysis should be taken, relating the testing to the previous site usage.  The selection process should also be made simpler, making the choice of other pipe materials more likely.

Article Contaminated Land Data Management

Water Pipes: a guide

- by
Tags: brownfield water

UKWIR (UK Water Industry Research) have recognised that with an increasing number of brownfield sites being used for development, it is important that appropriate water supply pipes are selected to provide long term protection to both water quality and the structural integrity of pipes. The focus of their project was the development of clear and concise procedures which provide consistency in the pipe selection decision process. Published data and water industry experience on the impacts of different contaminants on pipe materials have been used to provide guidance that can be used by relevant parties to ensure compliance with current regulations; and to prevent water supply pipelines failing prematurely due to the presence of contamination.

This guidance can be purchased from UKWIR for £50 by visiting: https://www.ukwir.org/report/90140/Water-Mains–Services–Leakage/90145/Pipeline-Technology/90146/Pipeline-Materials/93452/Guidance-for-the-Selection-of-Water-Supply-Pipes-to-be-used-in-Brownfield-Sites

The AGS Contaminated Land Working Group will be reviewing this document and invite any comments and observations to be sent to ags@ags.org.uk

Article Safety

Be On Your Guard

- by
Tags: Geotechnical HSE rigs

During recent years our industry has made great progress in providing rig guarding for piling and drilling rigs. Responding to the well publicised campaign from the HSE, it is now the case that we can expect that the rigs that are deployed for applications from well-drilling and SI through to heavy foundation work will be guarded. Specifically, this means that fixed or interlocked guards are normally practicable extending from 0.5m to 2m above ground level.

Of course, this is designed to protect the workforce and anyone who passes nearby to a rotating auger or drill string; and rightly so. But the responsibility does not rest entirely with the contractors.

To quote the CDM regulations, “Every designer shall in preparing or modifying a design…avoid foreseeable risks to the health and safety of any person carrying out construction work”.

But how does this apply to rig guarding, something which must seem esoteric when designing a piled basement or grouting project or even a site investigation?

It is HSE guidance that if the piling or drilling equipment cannot be operated with sufficient guarding then it is likely that the designer has not adequately considered the health and safety of those constructing the works. In other words the designer has failed to allow adequate working space for the piling rig to be operated safely.

This places a wide responsibility on our geotechnical professionals. Given the huge range and constantly changing equipment that is available to contractors, this obligation is hard to meet without specialist advice.

Frequently there is no single answer to a particular set and combination of conditions. Furthermore the industry continues to innovate. Contractors are now able to offer “wing-guards” that permit working very close to a wall or obstruction. Solutions can be found to safely drill or pile in corners and even electronic guarding is available on some machines, obviating the need for physical barriers altogether. Whilst this is of benefit to the project, it is essential that the designer considers all of this at design stage.

Given the progress that is being made designers (and for that matter CDM Co-ordinators) need to involve the specialist supply chain at an early stage. Advice should be sought and then taken into account in the design of the works. These discussions are likely to take place months if not years before actual construction takes place. For this and other reasons any specialist input should be recorded, preferably in writing and it should certainly form part of the CDM risk assessment.

Professionals need to be diligent and careful in identifying the risks associated with geotechnical work. By seeking advice from specialists, up-to-date techniques and methods can be incorporated into the safe execution of the project and into the relevant risk assessments. Only by doing so can we ensure that the protection offered by physical guarding extends to us all.

Article Business Practice Executive

Engineering, Geology, Geotechnics

- by
Tags: Engineering geology geotechnics students

University of Portsmouth’s Industrial Alliance in Engineering Geology & Geotechnics starts to show results

The University of Portsmouth is the only institution in the UK to offer an undergraduate degree in Engineering, Geology and Geotechnics. It has been running for over 40 years since its launch in 1967.

The overarching ethos of the degree is to prepare graduates with a good science background for a career in the ground engineering industry. Our students are focussed individuals who have identified this unique degree as a gateway to a satisfying professional career in the civil, mining or offshore sectors.

Up until 2008 the degree was a standard three year full time degree. However, in order to boost numbers and the calibre of students we decided a re-think was in order. In close collaboration with a number of major ground engineering companies we developed a sandwich version of our undergraduate degree with an associated Industrial Bursary Scheme. The scheme offers selected students a bursary of £1,750 per year plus a paid 8 week placement at the end of Level 1 and a paid 44 week placement at the end of Level 2.

The main objectives of this course restructuring are:

  1. To increase the pool of talented employable Engineering Geologists and Geotechnical Engineers in the UK
  2. To attract high quality students with good Science A-levels, Diploma or IB qualifications into the Profession of Engineering Geology and Geotechnical Engineering
  3. To secure a sustainable cohort of high quality students joining the B.Eng in Engineering Geology and Geotechnics (Sandwich) Degree pathway at the University of Portsmouth
  4. To forge strong links between the ground engineering industry and the University of Portsmouth

The sandwich degree and bursary scheme has had the desired effect – our second intake (2010-11) is up by 30% to 30 students, the majority with at least 2 science subjects or equivalent at A-level. The first intake of students onto the sandwich is at present seeking industrial placements for 2011-12.

We currently have seven companies actively involved in providing the bursary which is the main driver for recruitment. Therefore the key to the degree’s continued success and growth is support from Industry by either offering placements or bursaries. Our aim is to increase the number of bursaries on offer so we expand the course with high quality science based students who will feed into the UK ground engineering industry.

The foundation of our degree lies in the geological sciences which are built upon in Level 2 with Units taken in Soil Mechanics, Rock Mechanics, Hydrogeology, Ground Investigation, and Engineering Geology of the UK. In Level 3 these subjects are developed into Units in Rock Engineering, Geotechnical Engineering, Contaminated Land, and Landslides and Slope Stability. Underpinning the degree is an integrated field work program where key skills such as geological & geomorphological mapping, soil & rock description, and rock mass characterisation are developed. Transferable skills such as geotechnical report writing, air photo interpretation, use of geotechnical software packages, and GIS are also embedded into the curriculum.

If you would like to find out more about the degree course or the Industrial Bursary scheme, please contact the Programme Manager Nick Koor: e.nick.koor@port.ac.uk, t. (023) 9284 8484. Details can also be found about the course and Bursary on our web site www.port.ac.uk/sees

Article Safety

The Contractor ’s Problem

- by
Tags: Avoidance investigation responsibilities

You arrive on site with detailed plans of the buried services.  The electricity and telecommunications can be readily confirmed with your Cable Avoidance Tool (CAT); the route of the gas main, sewer and water main are visually located through pavement scarring and covers. The services are all found to be exactly at the location and depth expected and your drilling is completed without incident.
Oh that it were so simple. On how many sites is the information provided in respect of buried services woefully inadequate? Most often the electricity, water and sewerage plans show the detail in the roads surrounding your site but precious little as to the routing within the site boundary. The power loops to on-site street lighting and the installations for telecommunications are seldom shown on such drawings and remain to be discovered.
In the site investigation industry the biggest risk to the safety of operatives is arguably that of striking buried services and unlike many theoretical or perceived risks this is real. A JCB rarely loses an argument with a buried pipe or cable and the implications of ripping through a gas main and electricity supply together are only too obvious.
Clause 11 of the CDM regulations 2007 sets out clearly the duties of designers, particularly in taking “all reasonable steps to provide with his design sufficient information…”. This begs the question as to whether sufficient attention is being given to acquiring detailed and accurate services information prior to breaking ground. In most developments it would appear that gathering this information is of low priority and reliance is placed on the site crew to dig a 1.2 m deep inspection pit.

Detailed information concerning buried services is obviously going to be required at some stage in the project. The key point, therefore, becomes when rather than if the information is to be obtained. A number of commercial providers will obtain all of the services information relatively rapidly and relatively economically. Going back to responsibilities under CDM; is gathering this information in advance of breaking ground a ‘reasonable step’?

Well yes, responsible designers should be advising their clients that detailed current services information should be acquired at the very earliest opportunity. It must be seen as an equally important and “routine” activity as a topographic survey of a site and will be of benefit to all parties as the design progresses. Crucially, however it contributes significantly to reducing the risk of injury to the ground investigation contractor.

Surely it would be better for all parties if the ideal set out in the first paragraph applied to all sites.

Martin Cooper
Principal Geotechnical Engineer
Geotechnical and Environmental Associates Limited

Article Safety

The Consultant’s Problem

- by
Tags: investigation Pre-Construction risk

There is still a perception within the industry, and sadly, this includes some CDM-Co-ordinators (CDM-C), that it is not necessary to appoint a CDM-C or provide Pre-Construction Information (PCI) for the site investigation stage of a project.  Therefore, when we as Consultants/ Designers are appointed we are already on the back foot.  Experience tells of precious time on a project often lost while Designers/ Consultants try to persuade stakeholders, including CDM-C’s, that (intrusive) ground investigation works are considered “Construction works” and therefore the relevant CDM regulations apply.  Unfortunately, this is not being helped by the current aggressive nature of the market where it seems that some Consultants and Consultant/ Contractors will take on projects at the site/ ground investigation stage without the required CDM-C appointment and Pre-Construction Information to give them the edge on the competition.
The time taken to obtain full service records for a site (a key part of the PCI), before the design of ground investigation work can take place, can affect the progress of a project in both increased fees and programme.  Yes, there are “one-stop-shop” companies who will obtain the buried services information for a site, and yes they offer accelerated turn-around times for such services.  However, in the majority of cases the full service returns will not be received within 4 weeks.  Once received, the plans vary in scale, content, style and are rarely drawn accurately to scale.   Due to this the Designer is left with information which cannot be totally relied upon when designing the intrusive phase of ground investigation works (i.e. selecting that all important exploratory hole position).
Therefore, since “Every designer shall in preparing or modifying a design which may be used in construction work in Great Britain avoid foreseeable risks to the health and safety of any person…”, we advise the Stakeholders that either in advance of, or during the intrusive ground investigation site operations, further hazard elimination and management procedures be implemented.  Clearly, within the congested underground of the United Kingdom, buried services are a “foreseeable risk…”.   “Reasonably practicable” measures in order that we, as Designers, can either design out (manage) or eliminate such a risk, can include, but not be limited to:

  • Positive identification by utility companies.
  • Utility and service mapping services.
  • Vacuum excavation.

However, such measures have programme implications and additional costs which can often make them hard to incorporate in the project budget, despite the potential savings to the project that these hazard elimination and management measures can provide in reducing “risks to the health and safety of any person”, as well as the risk of significant cost and programme delays which can be incurred when buried services are struck.
Therefore, the biggest hurdle, facing the “competent” consultant/ designer is to convince the stakeholders that the consequence of encountering a buried service, either at intrusive ground investigation stage or main construction work stage, is worth the additional early cost.  As discussed earlier, this is currently against a backdrop of an increasingly competitive market place where consultants/ designers can be found who are willing to work with a higher risk and perhaps be less open with the Client as to the levels of risk the project is being exposed to.
Highlighting the consequence of the unexpected or accidental conflict/ encounter of buried services in any stage of a project should not only be within the health and safety risk assessments for activities on a project but also the Project Risk Register.  Once the consequences are clearly outlined to Stakeholders they should be more than aware of the importance of managing or mitigating the possibility of such an encounter.  There should be greater cross stakeholder collaboration, which should include the Principal Contractor, Contractor and Designer in addition to the Clients or Consultants, in the compilation of a comprehensive Project Risk Register.
There, must be joint agreement between both consultants and contractors as to the “reasonably practicable” means for eliminating or managing the risks associated with buried services.  As a result both consultants and contractors should agree not to proceed with projects until such “reasonably practicable” measures are implemented.  After all, within the CDM 2007 regulations all persons with a duty under the Regulations (including the Client) are to ensure that “the construction work can be carried out so far as is reasonably practicable without risk to the health and safety of any person;”

Article Loss Prevention

Insurance Claim Refusals

- by
Tags: Adjusters Assessors insurance

Tim White of Marquis & Lord, reports on the findings of recent consultations with insurance claims professionals.

A recent straw poll of Loss Adjusters (who work for insurance companies) and Loss Assessors (who work for claimants) has shown that there is an increase in claims being refused because of policy non-conformance.

Key examples, pertinent to the AGS businesses, relate to site and plant security where vandalism or thefts result from poor security.  In addition, lock types that do not conform to insurance policy requirements are also causing claims to be refused.

This has implications for the industry in many areas but particularly if vandalism results in loss of material giving rise to pollution, where the clean up costs can have far reaching consequences.  Refusal of a claim which would have been covered as a legitimate sudden and un-intended escape may be refused if the causal step involved non compliance with policy demands relative to site or plant security.

The solution is simple:

  • check policy wording to determine if lock types or minimum security measures are specified;
  • if minimum requirements are specified, check to see if the company complies with them; and
  • if possible, go a step further than the minimum requirements.

The moral of the story is, do not get caught out because of a low cost lock.

Article Business Practice Data Management

Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010

- by
Tags: environmental Permitting regulatory

DEFRA announced that the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 came into force on April 6th 2010. Water discharge consenting, groundwater authorisation and radioactive substances regulation are now part of the single environmental permitting system which helps to deliver cuts in unnecessary red tape whilst continuing to protect the environment and human health.

The Environment Agency’s Environmental Permitting web pages (www.environment-agency.gov.uk)  and Netregs website (www.netregs.gov.uk) provides detailed advice on the new procedures and offers links to new application forms, regulatory guidance and standard permit rules.

Government guidance is also available from the DEFRA website. The guidance includes additional Environmental Permitting guidance on Statutory Nuisance and several other updated documents.

Article Business Practice Data Management

CSCS Cards – Explained!

- by
Tags: Accreditation CSCS professional qualification

There are four types of red cards which are new or recent entrants to the construction industry  for  experienced workers whose occupation has been closed for industry Accreditation and are working towards a NVQ (National Vocational Qualification) or SVQ (Scottish Vocational Qualification).

RED CARD- TRAINEE (craft and operative)
You will qualify for this card if you are a trainee, and registered for an NVQ or SVQ (or Construction Award) but have not yet achieved level 2 or 3 and have met current CSCS Health and Safety requirements.

Trainees must have passed the health and safety test and the card is valid for three years. The card can be renewed for a further three years on application.

RED CARD-GRADUATE (Technical, Supervisory and Management)
You will qualify for this card if your have completed a nationally recognised construction related qualification with a further/higher education college or university. You will be required to complete the Managerial and Professional (known as MAP) Health and Safety Test.

The Graduate card is valid for three years and can be renewed for three years on application.

RED CARD- EXPERIENCED TECHNICAN, SUPERVISOR OR MANAGER (Technical, Supervisory and Management)
This card is available to Supervisors and Managers with on the job experience (normally at least one year within the last three), but missed the industry accreditation opportunity and do not hold and NVQ or SVQ level 3,4 or 5 or a Member of an approved Professional Body. To qualify for this card you need to-

  • Check to see if your role is covered by CSCS
  • Pass the health and safety test
  • Register for an NVQ or SVQ
  • Complete and NVQ or SVQ profiling session

The card is valid for three years and is non renewable. The card is only issued on a temporary basis, while an NVQ/SVQ is being achieved. It is expected to be replaced by a skilled five year card on achievement of NQV/SVQ level 3 or higher.

RED CARD-EXPERIENCED WORKER
This card is available to everyone with on the job experience (normally at least one year within the last three), but missed the industry accreditation opportunity.
To qualify for this card you need to-

  • Check to see if your trade is covered by CSCS
  • Pass the health and safety test

This card is valid for one year and is non renewable.
This card is issued on a temporary basis, while an NVQ/SVQ is being achieved. It is expected to be replaced by a skilled five year card on achievement of NVQ/SVQ level 2 or higher.

An Experienced Worker Card can not be replaced by a Construction Site Operative (CRO) or a basic skills green card.

WHITE/YELLOW- PROFESSIONALLY QUALIFIED PERSON (PQP) CARD
The white/yellow PQP card is for competent assessed members of CSCS approved professional bodies such as (ICE, CIOB, RICS). The scope of the PQP card has recently been redefined after a lengthy consultation with the professional bodies and no longer has a time spent on site restriction placed on it. To apply for the PQP card you must-

  • Be a competent assessed Member of an approved institution
  • Pass the Managerial and Professional (MAP) Construction Skills health and safety test

These cards are valid for five years and can be renewed on re-verification of the PQP criteria.

WHITE/GREY- CONSTRUCTION RELATED OCCUPATION (CRO) CARD
This card covers construction related occupations not covered by the other categories of card and shows the holder’s occupation.

A CRO card is valid for five years and to renew it applicants must retake and pass the Construction Skills health and safety test.

Article Business Practice Data Management

The Importance of Keeping Good Written Records

- by
Tags: documentary integrity record

Here at Griffiths and Armour, we are acutely aware that being able to produce clear evidence of the advice given to a client is clearly essential to a good defence when facing allegations of negligence. However, it is also important to have a record of the actions and decisions of other members of the project team, including the client, where they have an impact on your services.

For instance, detailed discussions often take place between designer, contractor and employer during design and site meetings regarding aspects of the design or construction of a project.  Often verbal advice is given at such meetings and decisions are made regarding the development of the design or construction of the project, but the points discussed are not always evidenced in writing and, if they are, are often no more than short-hand bullet points in the meeting minutes.  Without clear written evidence of such discussions, it may prove impossible to rely in Court on an assertion that a particular piece of advice was given, when another party argues strongly that it was not.

It is also worth noting that Courts and arbitrators attach great importance to factual records of meetings, site inspections and telephone conversations, and the accuracy and detail of such records will often be viewed by a Court as reflecting the overall professionalism, experience and integrity of the author.

In this note, we consider very different cases where, on the one hand, the lack of good written records proved detrimental to the defence of a claim and, on the other, an example highlighting how the existence of good written evidence can be of huge benefit to the successful defence of a claim.

Case 1

Ambiguity over the scope of an appointment agreement (and whether it was extended midterm) is created by the absence of written records.

The project in question related to the conversion of a bungalow to make it suitable for habitation by a wheelchair user, left disabled following an accident.  Various problems arose following completion of the conversion. A firm of surveyors were engaged to investigate the defects with a view to assisting the owner, acting via her trustees, to recover from the contractors and/or designers responsible.  Whilst investigating the defects to the property, a further problem was identified with the drains in the bathroom, apparently unconnected to the conversion works. The surveyors offered to arrange for a contractor to visit site and suggest remedial works.  The contractor made his visit and commenced work estimating a cost of £8,000.

The problem arose when he increased his price to £48,000 after encountering unexpected complexities.  Following completion of the drainage work, the trustees alleged that they had no contractual relationship with the contractor and refused to pay for the works. In the event that a Court were to find against them on that argument, they would argue that the surveyors acted either as their agent or as principal in their own right, and therefore should be liable to pay the £40,000 differential.

At the time of writing the contractor is pursuing his fees from the trustees who are threatening to drag the surveyors into any subsequent proceedings.  The surveyors maintain that they did not appoint the contractor, but merely introduced him to the client.  Unfortunately, correspondence between the various parties (when viewed objectively) creates ambiguity
over the actual role of the surveyors. The contractor purports to be under the impression that he was appointed by the surveyors, but this may simply be a tactic adopted by his solicitors in an attempt to drag the firm into the dispute. Legal advice obtained on behalf of the surveyors and their insurers suggests that they were probably acting as agent to the trustees, but may be open to criticism for exceeding their authority.

Case 2

Defence harmed due to an absence of written evidence to substantiate that suitable advice had been given to a claimant.

A firm of architects and contract administrators were appointed in relation to the extension of a cottage.  The owners of the cottage alleged that they had not been provided with a copy of the building contract, nor advised on how to complete the draft form of contract with the result that the contract was never executed. Specifically, they alleged that the architect
had failed to advise them on how to go about completing the contract sections dealing with
liquidated ascertained damages and insurance of the building works.

A fire occurred at the property part way through construction and it was discovered that no insurance had been taken out in respect of the building works destroyed in the fire. The contractor had not insured the works because the draft building contract released to him clearly indicated that insurances were the responsibility of the employer. The architects were
reasonably confident of their position having provided appropriate advice in various areas, but very little of that advice was recorded in writing. The defence therefore relied on the architect’s recollection of oral advice given to the employer at meetings that took place a number of years previously. However, the employers were able to show that they were in fact
out of the country on some of the dates the meetings were alleged to have taken place, causing considerable damage to the credibility of the architect’s defence.  The general lack of documentary evidence meant that this was not a matter which could easily be defended in Court, and this had a consequent effect on subsequent settlement negotiations.

The previous examples make grim reading and highlight how the absence of written evidence to prove or disprove assertions or allegations can seriously damage a consultant’s defence to a professional negligence claim.

Case 3

The final example we wish to highlight in relation to this subject is far more positive and demonstrates how detailed and comprehensive records of a project can be invaluable in fending off a spurious claim.

This particular case relates to the refurbishment and extension of a large hotel. Completion of the project was delayed by about 50 weeks and the cost increased from under £40m to just over £60m.

Following completion, the hotel owner commenced Court proceedings against the construction management company, who it alleged was primarily responsible for the delay and cost overruns.  Our concern lies with the role of the structural engineer appointed for the project.  Although the structural engineer was not directly implicated in the Court case, the construction manager consistently sought to avoid responsibility for the delay by placing blame at the structural engineer’s door.  Various allegations were made, including that delays had arisen as a result of late production of design information and late changes to design drawings.  The structural engineer was given an opportunity to provide the Court with evidence and witness statements explaining the true position.  There was a significant risk that subsequent action would be taken directly against the engineer by either of the parties to the case, should the Court fail to rule out culpability on the engineer’s part.

The project was dogged by problems from the very beginning, most of which stemmed from the failings by the construction manager in the procurement and management strategy for a key phase of the works – the erection of a complex temporary roof structure to protect the exposed building whilst allowing access for the construction of a new, higher, mansard roof.
This element was eventually completed seven months later than planned and had a direct effect on the rest of the project. Later phases of the project were further delayed, again largely as a result of the construction manager’s failure to manage the construction
process properly.

The employees appointed by the construction manager for the project came from a traditional contracting background and were described as having a ‘builder’s mentality’ when it came to managing the project.  This no doubt contributed to problems, and throughout the project the construction manager adopted a highly adversarial stance when dealing with the design team. Progress reports issued by the construction manager consistently claimed that the causes of delay lay with other parties, usually members of the design team. The structural engineer, in particular, was often accused by the construction manager of poor performance and placed under significant pressure to produce design information in accordance to revised deadlines that were totally unachievable.  This tactic was part of a wider strategy to disguise the real source of the delays and the construction manager went to great lengths in order to do so,
providing misleading information to the hotel owner regarding the actual delay occurring and in one case even claimed that certain demolition activities had been completed months before they actually were. It also became clear that ‘logic links’ in the electronic programming software used on the project were tampered with, which had the effect of disguising where the programme’s critical path lay.

Faced with a concerted effort on the part of the construction manager to confuse the programme and the causes of delay, the structural engineer needed to provide a strong case in order to convince the Court of the true position. Key to this was a raft of documentation from the firm’s project files, which provided a detailed and accurate description of the project’s progress and the problems it succumbed to.

Evidence which proved invaluable to the structural engineer’s arguments included the following:

• detailed site progress reports with dated photographs depicting the actual progress of demolition and construction. This documentation helped the Court to determine when work took place on site and where the construction programme’s critical path really lay.

• detailed meeting minutes and records of conversations with the construction manager and other parties to the project. The structural engineer had a policy that requires all such records to be copied to every employee and senior manager within the firm who was connected with the project, so in this way the entire team was kept fully aware of developments.

• dated records of drawings made available to the construction manager including records of times when drawings were reviewed by the construction manager at the structural engineer’s offices.

• letters and other written records providing evidence that the structural engineer continually sought to highlight areas of concern to the construction manager in relation to the sequencing and programming of the works and procurement of specialist trade packages, yet his comments were often ignored.

• evidence in the form of file-notes and letters to the employer and other members of the project team highlighting concerns regarding the construction manager’s poor performance and lack of understanding regarding the critical path. The employer was also warned that the programme revisions issued by the construction manager did not mirror what was taking place on site.

The quality and detail of the structural engineer’s records had great influence on the Judge, who placed significant reliance on them throughout the case. He found the construction manager liable for the damages claimed by the hotel owner and made it clear in his judgement that the structural engineer played no part in causing or contributing to the delays to the project.

There is no doubt that the structural engineer’s records were heavily relied on by the Court and the claimant’s programming expert to determine where the cause of the project’s  problems lay. No other party to the project was able to provide the Court with records as detailed as those of the structural engineer, and there is little doubt that the Court would have struggled to accurately determine the true progress of the project or seen through the construction manager’s attempts to disguise the true picture had those records been incomplete. The resulting ambiguity would certainly have been exploited by the construction manager in order to persuade the Court to place some of the blame with the structural engineer and other parties.