Article Business Practice Loss Prevention Safety

Defence cost in criminal prosecutions

- by
Tags: defence legislation safety

It is probably common knowledge that fines arising from Criminal Prosecutions for Health and Safety breaches are not covered by a designer’s Professional Indemnity Insurance Policy.

Fines therefore have to be paid out of the company’s assets.

Defending a Health and Safety prosecution can be difficult as the burden of proof is with the defendant to show that he has complied with the relevant legislation- it’s not for the prosecuting authority to establish in what way the legislation has been breached.

Consequently defending criminal prosecutions can be very expensive and may in fact exceed the possible fine that may arise.

This often results in the designer pleading guilty on the basis of getting a reduced fine even though he feels there was no breach.

Although the fine cannot be met by a Professional Indemnity Policy, the defence cost can be.

Many consultants are now considering that a significant feature of a particular PI policy is the ability to recover these defence costs.

Note that not all PI policies offer this cover and the decision to defend a prosecution will rest with the insurer who will look at the merits and likely success of a defence.

 

Ewan MacGregor
Griffiths and Armour

Article Contaminated Land

Construction Waste… and how to make it disappear

- by
Tags: construction practice waste

Half of construction waste already gets recycled, but the other half is still either being spread as waste (under various licensing exemptions) or simply landfilled. With the pressure to create less waste, and Site Waste Management Plans now a reality for England and Wales (and coming through the back door to Scotland) guidance on ‘when is an alleged waste not a waste’ has been published by commercial law solicitors Semple Fraser.

If correctly applied, the legal answer to that question can legitimately transform what is asserted (often by the regulators) to be ‘waste’ into a genuine non waste ‘product’.

The “CL:AIRE” advisory group on contaminated land is currently consulting on a new code of practice-( visit www.claire.co.uk to view Code of Practice), which may affect the way the regulators seek to interpret and apply Some helpful pointers to the existing law can be downloaded from Semple Fraser’s website at

http://www.semplefraser.co.uk/index.php?s=50&c=180&p=1995.

Article Business Practice Data Management Executive Safety

Establishing Ground Rules

- by
Tags: construction ground HSE Investigations

Concerns over the place of Ground investigations in relation to CDM led John Banks and Mouchel Parkman to raise queries with HSE and an APS Legal Adviser. We print below the critical exchanges for the benefit of all those who may encounter similar concerns/ problems.

From John Bans (Technical Director of Mouchel Parkman and Finance Director of APSt) to staff at Mouchel Parkman

“I have attached a copy of the legal advice received from The Association for Project Safety relating to the application of CDM Regulations to Ground Investigations. The reason for asking for a specific ruling was the attitude of the Contractor who despite being informed (via structure and correct ICE Conditions of Contract) that we expected them to be Principal Contractor, moaned about the fact once appointed.  The work is small in scale: 3 days trail pitting, then a break and then returning to undertake the boreholes for 3 weeks.

You will note that the ruling supplied states that it is the project that is important (building schools [and in fact most projects] generally takes longer than 6 weeks to construct)

I know I have started this before but note that:

  • All Ground Investigations, allied to a larger project will have a construction period of no longer than 6 weeks (and generally that is the only reason we are doing them), need a CDM Co-ordinator and Principal Contractor

The only exception is where we are undertaking Ground Investigations and there is no final project (seeing if a site is within Part 11A, etc)”

 

The APS Legal Advisors had responded to John’s enquiries as follows:
“The issue in this query centres around the definition of a project. This is defined in regulation 2 as “a project which includes or is intended to include construction work and includes all planning, design, management or other involved in a project until the end of the construction phase”.

The ground investigation is part of a larger project. The definition of a project extends to include the planning and design, which is taking place at the same time as the ground investigation. It would be artificial to treat the ground investigation works as separate from the project as a whole.

The difference between treating the ground investigation as part of a notifiable project, and treating it as a stand alone project which is not notifiable, need not be very great.  The ground investigation contractor would of course have the duties of a principal contractor, but contractors have duties under CDM2007 in any event if their work is not notifiable (see regulation 13).

Because of the limited nature of the works, the health and safety file would not need to be lengthy or elaborate. The health and safety plan would deal with the specific risks only. Similarly the health and safety file would not need to cover more than the residual risks arising out of the ground investigation works or which have become apparent as the result of those works.”

The Mouchel Parkman Compliance manager had also sought the views of the HSE at Rose Court via infoline and received the following.

“You are correct in every respect. The ground investigation works are part of the notifiable part of the project. It is not unusual for ground investigation works to take place early, perhaps long before the appointment of the Principal Contractor who will be undertaking the management of the main construction phase. However, it is still part of the same overall project.

As the project is notifiable, and the ground investigation is part of the notifiable project, there needs to be a Principal Contractor (PC) appointed. If the only work being carried out on site is the ground investigation, then I do not understand why the ground contractor thinks they are not competent to act as PC- for themselves. The role of PC is essentially to co-ordinate the construction work on site, to ensure that it is carried out safely. I assume the contractor feels confident enough to do their own work safely.  There will be a requirement to fence off the site, liaise and co-ordinate with the school/client to ensure safety to children, staff and the nearby public, and ensure welfare facilities. Their construction phase plan will only need to go as far as covering their involvement at the site. At the end of their work, presumable they relinquish the role of PC, which is subsequently taken up by the PC for the main construction phase plan.

If there will be other contractors working at the same time as the ground investigation contractor, I can understand their reluctance if they have not been in a position to manage other contractors before, and they may not have personnel capable or competent to do this task. Otherwise, acting as PC for their own work only, should not create any extra demands.

Ref: Article taken from APS newsletter/ October 2007

Article Laboratories

Use of Standard Laboratory Tests in the Assessment of Slope Stability of Peat

- by
Tags: electricity environmental laboratory peat

In December 2006 the Scottish Executive (SE) published a best practice guide for proposed electricity generation developments entitled “Peat landslide hazard and risk assessments”. The SE document includes a requirement for slope stability analysis using the infinite slope equation. While there is nothing wrong with the equation, it pre-supposes that the conventional effective stress parameters are appropriate for peat and furthermore, by implication, that they can be obtained from standard laboratory testing.

In his major work on peat, Hobbs specifically excluded any discussion on shear strength noting that it is clear that the strength depends not only on effective stress but also on time as the void ratio continuously decreases under maintained load. Other authors have reported exceptionally high drained strengths and regard the effective stress tests as problematic.

Notwithstanding the foregoing paragraph, there has been a noticeable increase in demand for effective stress triaxial and direct shear tests on peat to satisfy the requirements of the SE document. Inevitably these tests create major difficulties for the test laboratory and then provide strengths which are not credible to the engineer doing the assessment.

The following comments need careful consideration prior to scheduling what can be time consuming and expensive laboratory tests :

  • Assessment based on compressive or shear stresses may be insufficient for peat in which the main strength may well be tensile due to fibrous structure.
  • For effective stress triaxial and direct shear tests the rate of strain in shearing is derived from the preceding consolidation stages. For peat there are well documented difficulties in identifying primary and secondary compression, and their associated parameters. Standard test procedures rely on data for primary consolidation only in order to calculate compression rates. In peat, secondary compression may be more dominant.
  • In undrained compression, pore pressures increase rapidly and are sustained very close to the applied total stress, thus producing very low effective stresses, often within the uncertainty of measurement of standard testing. This is particularly true where the stresses are initially very low as would be the case for superficial peats. Such low effective stresses are inherently inaccurate and lead to derivation of very high effective angle of friction, 50o to 80o have been reported.
  • In drained compression or direct shear the rapid flow of water from specimens often produces an untypically concave upward trend in the stress/strain curve without achieving failure even at very high deviatoric stress, again producing a very high angle of friction.

 

This cautionary note should not detract from the main requirements and recommendations of the guide, but needs to be given serious consideration when assessing the method of analysis to be used for slope stability in peat. If such laboratory testing is to be used, it is prudent to discuss individual requirements with the laboratory prior to scheduling, but still expect the test results to be problematic.

Peter Keeton, Environmental Services Group Ltd

Article Safety

Underground Services and Utility Plans

- by
Tags: Guidance safety underground

Figures provided by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) record around 30 fatalities a year through contact with electricity. Most of these fatalities arise from contact with overhead or underground power cables and even when non-fatal, they can cause severe and permanent injury. Within the ground investigation industry, the potential for striking underground services is far greater than from coming into contact with overhead services and it is possibly the greatest risk we face.

The ability to react quickly to the requests of clients is seen by many companies as their competitive advantage, but this has to be balanced against the legal requirement to reduce risk. Any measures taken should be in accordance with the general principles of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 further clarified in the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations (CDM) 2007 :

  • clients shall ‘provide appropriate pre-construction information to designers and contractors’
  • all parties shall allow sufficient time to obtain vital pre-construction safety information

To help companies discharge these duties the HSE provides clear guidance on how to reduce the level of risk from underground services in their publication ‘HSG47 – Avoiding Danger from Underground Services’ . Within HSG47 the HSE outlines the requirement for any company involved with work where there is a risk of contacting underground services, to have in place and use a safe system of work consisting of four elements:

  • Planning the work and risk assessment
  • Maps and plans to identify the presence and location of underground services
  • Cable and pipe locating devices
  • Safe digging practices

Planning the work, assessing risk, using cable avoidance tools and safe digging are in every safe system of work but the use of utility plans is often absent. So why do many people take a short cut that could result in injury or fatality?

Initially it is the inability to obtain utility plans within the timescales demanded by clients and the commercial pressure to deliver reports and studies on time. Although utility plans are generally available within five working days they can take longer and this may not fit the expectations of the client, particularly where the decision to purchase land depends on the outcome of a report by a fixed deadline. But in the context of CDM2007, the provision of utility plans and any resulting delay in mobilisation is seen as strong evidence that all reasonable care has been taken to protect staff and members of the public.

CDM has always defined construction as:

‘Any civil engineering ….the preparation for an intended structure, including site clearance, exploration, investigation (but not site survey).’

Historically, the geotechnical and environmental sector has often viewed its work as exempt from the requirements of CDM as work only fell within the scope of the regulations when the work was ‘in preparation for a structure’. With the revision in April 2007 this requirement has been clarified and it is now clear CDM applies to work undertaken in ‘preparation of sites for use’, whether notifiable or not. It should be noted that irrespective of CDM there is an existing duty of care and HSG47 still applies.

The intention of a safe system of work is not necessarily to eliminate risk entirely but to reduce it to a level “as low as is reasonably practicable”. This is recognised by the HSE. However, for a safe system of work to be effective it must incorporate all four of the elements outlined in HSG47 and referred to earlier. The role of utility plans should be viewed in this context. Each element in the safe system of work has limitations, but they complement each other and when used together address the fundamental weaknesses of each.

The planning of the work and the development of risk assessments is the initial stage of the safe system of work. Understanding the site, its history and the nature and location of any likely services, will initially determine costs of works and the cable detection technology required. This can only be done with reference to utility plans.

Utility plans have limitations and this is often used as a justification for not including them in safe systems of work. Utility providers acknowledge their services rarely run in straight lines, surface depths may have changed, datums such as kerblines may have been moved and plans may only run to site boundaries. They all carry disclaimers to this extent.

Clients and contractors alike do not routinely expect utility plans to show the path of services on domestic, industrial or derelict sites and rarely request them as a result. This is particularly common for areas under development despite the fact that live services may still be present and utility plans may show where they cross sites or mysteriously terminate at the boundary. Without attempting to obtain utility plans in these cases the contractor or client will not be discharging their duty of care in possibly the highest risk environment of all.

Maps and plans are supplemental to the use of appropriate cable and pipe locating technologies which all come with inherent weaknesses. In most instances the appropriate cable locating technology will be a basic Cable Avoidance Tool (CAT) to verify the accuracy of utility plans or detect the presence of services not indicated. However CATs will not detect plastic or earthenware pipes, cables with no load and in some cases three phase cables where the load is well balanced. At the other end of the scale there is Ground Probing Radar which is expensive and may not detect all ground anomalies such as small diameter low voltage supply cables. To determine the suitable technology, reference must be made to utility plans and the site engineer must have an understanding of the applicable equipment.

Safe digging can only take place if you know what to expect. As examples, the use of mechanical equipment is prohibited within certain distances of gas mains with the distance depending on the mains pressure. Additionally safe digging traditionally relied on noticing a change in geology to indicate utility presence but this may no longer be applicable with the increasing use of directional drilling for service installation. In both of these examples the risk can only be truly managed with reference to utility plans.

As a final point of note, it must be understood that the safe system of work will only be effective if staff on site are trained in all 4 aspects and supported in the decisions they make. The safe system of work should carry the sponsorship of a senior figure, as a clear demonstration of commitment to staff safety, and be accompanied by a documented procedure that can be followed and used as reference.

References
Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 – Approved Code of Practice and guidance – L21 is available from HSE books priced £8.00

CDM2007 Approved Code of Practice known commonly as L144 is available from HSE books priced £15.00

HSG(47) ‘Avoiding Danger from Underground Services’ is available from HSE books (www.hsebooks.com) priced £7.50

Tom Phillips
Applied Geology

Article Data Management

Specification for Piling and Embedded Retaining Walls Errata

- by
Tags: Embedded errors piling

There are errors in transcription in the first two print runs of ICE’s second edition of the Specification for Piling and Embedded Retaining Walls.  These are shown in Italic as below

In Table B1.4 Standard installation tolerances  (page 33)

Tolerance All bearing piles All embedded retaining wall types constructed without a guide wall All embedded retaining wall
types constructed with a guide wall
Plan position for piles/walls with cut-off level above or at commencing surface 75mm in any direction 75 mm 25mm
Plan position for piles/walls with cut-off level below commencing surface 75mm in any direction plus additional tolerance in accordance with rake and vertical deviation below 75mm + 13.3mm for every
1m below cut-off level		 25mm + 13.3mm for every
1m below cut-off level
Maximum permitted deviation of the finished pile/wall element from the vertical at any level 1 in 75 at any level 1 in 75 for exposed face 1 in 75 for exposed face
Maximum permitted deviation of raked piles Rake <1 in 6; 1 in 25
Rake >1 in 6; 1 in 15		 n/a n/a

 

In B1.14.1 Driving procedures and redrive checks   (page 41)  Line 10  “blows/25mm” should be “blows/250mm”

In B1.14.3 Set  (page 42) Last line   “penetration of 250mm”   should be “penetration of 25mm”

Purchasers will have different updates on these errors dependent upon their purchase timing.  It is intended that this note alerts all purchasers to the  problem errors and that it can be referred to when clarification is needed for Specification discussions.

 

Article Safety

Ground investigation industry urged to take heed of new EC regulations

- by
Tags: ground investigation regulations vehicles

In April 2007, yet another piece of EC Regulation came into force. This relates to drivers’ hours and the need for tachographs to record the information. While the regulations were prompted by the need to revise the conditions for those that spend most of their working day actually behind the wheel as drivers, they do have an impact on the ground investigation industry.

The new rules and regulations are complex but below is an attempt to summarise the important points. Acknowledgement and thanks is due to the British Drilling Association (BDA) who have put a lot of work into ploughing through this potential minefield. The Regulations are available in full from the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) in the document GV262 (Second Edition 12/2006) “Drivers Hours and  Tachograph Rules for Goods Vehicles in the UK and Europe”.

The summary below developed from a series of meetings between the BDA, VOSA and the Department of Transport.

The regulations define an “in scope vehicle” as one capable of carrying goods for commercial purposes and over 3.5 tonnes maximum permissible weight. To quote VOSA, this means “either the maximum permissible gross weight of the vehicle and that of any trailer (added together) or the towing vehicle’s maximum permissible train weight, whichever is the less.” “In scope vehicles” have to be fitted with a tachograph.

Dual purpose vehicles are classified as being capable of carrying goods and towing trailers or drilling rigs. Such vehicles are typically used within the ground investigation industry for towing cable percussion drilling rigs. The words “capable of carrying goods” are important since tools of the trade may be excluded but recovered samples would not.

A trailer is defined as anything that is trailed so includes a cable percussion rig, compressor, bowser or other mobile plant. This definition comes from a Court ruling.

As we all know the tachograph records drivers’ hours. From the 1st May any new ‘’in scope vehicle’’ must have a digital tachograph conforming to EC regulations. Analogue or digital tachographs are allowed in vehicles supplied before this date. Some older vehicles may not be suitable to take digital tachographs so check with the manufacturer before deciding on which type to buy.

EC Drivers’ Hours Rules are complex and require detailed and careful record keeping. They apply to drivers of ‘’in scope vehicles’’ fitted with a tachograph (when 50 kms or more from base) other than drivers who never exceed 10 days driving over a rolling reference period, typically of 17 weeks. UK Domestic Drivers Hours Rules apply to drivers “of in scope vehicles” fitted with a tachograph when within 50 kms of base.

Drivers subject to EC Rules must not exceed an average weekly driving/working time of 48 hours calculated over the rolling reference period. The calculation of the 48 hours has to include all hours worked (driving and other work) wherever incurred. VOSA have stated that there is no opt-out for individuals wishing to work longer than an average 48 hour week, but break periods and periods of availability will not count as working time.

Because the rules are so complex it is advisable that anyone affected consults the Regulations very carefully. If in doubt seek legal advice.

Greg Southgate
RSA Geotechnics Ltd

Article Safety

Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 (“CDM”) – Questions and Answers

- by
Tags: hazardous regulations risk safety

Why was it necessary to revise the CDM Regulations 1994?

The new Regulations came into force in April 2007.  The purpose of the updated Regulations is to focus on the virtues of effective planning and management of construction projects from inception, i.e. the design concept.  The Regulations seek to engender a greater emphasis upon  health and safety considerations in order to reduce the risk of harm to those who build, use and maintain structures, and to address the generally accepted trend that the construction industry remains disproportionately hazardous to those working within it.

The aim is to enable members of the construction industry to work together to adopt a more health & safety conscious management programme, by:

  • Simplifying regulation;
  • Improving planning and management from the design stage onward;
  • Early identification of risks;
  • Encourage cooperation and working together;
  • Reduce bureaucracy and raise standards.

What are the CDM Regulations 2007

The new Regulations are divided into 5 parts:

Part 1 – Application and definition of the Regulations;
Part 2 – General duties that apply to all construction projects;
Part 3 – Additional duties that apply to notifiable projects;
Part 4 – Practical requirements for all construction sites;
Part 5 – Transitional arrangements and revocations.

 

What type of project is notifiable?

A notifiable project is one that will last longer than 30 days (including holidays and weekends) or which will involve more that 500 person days of construction work (calculated on a normal working shift).  Domestic projects for those who live, or will live, in the premises and are not related through trade, business or undertaking the project, are not notifiable.  It is the responsibility of the new CDM Co-ordinator to notify the project.

What is the role of the CDM Co-ordinator and the Principal Contractor?

On all notifiable projects a CDM Co-ordinator and a Principal Contractor must be appointed.  The co-ordinator is responsible for advising the Client and notifying the HSE together with managing the communication of the construction team and creating the health & safety file.  The Principal Contractor is responsible for planning, managing and monitoring the progress of the works.  In addition, they should ensure that the Client is aware of their duties and that the Co-ordinator is appointed and information is provided for the health & safety file.

 

By what criteria is competency measured under the new Regulations?

There are 3 stages to competency:

  • Basic understanding of risk and how they are managed;
  • Sufficient understanding of the tasks to be used and the risks they involve;
  • The necessary experience and ability to carry out those duties.

The basic premise is, competent people are safer people.  It is important that individuals and organisations recognise their own limitations in this regard.  The Approved Code of Practice provides valuable guidance when addressing the question of competency.

 

What if the project has already begun?

The 2007 Regulations will apply.  There are provisions dealing with the transition period between the old and new Regulations but, importantly, the competency element must be acquired within 12 months.

 

Who are the new dutyholders?

Specific duties are imposed upon Clients, the CDM Co-ordinator, Designers, Contractors and Principal Contractors.

Clients:

They cannot now transfer their liabilities and duties to third parties, however, an agent acting on an existing project, under the CDM 1994, can continue in that role until the end of the project or April 2012, whichever is the earlier.

The Client must also ensure that the project is suitably managed and all relevant  required information is provided.

Designers:

The Designer must principally comply with the Workplace (Health, Safety & Welfare) Regulations 1992 and must not begin work until the Client is aware of its duties.  Further, all reasonable steps should be taken to ensure that the other members of the construction team, including the Client, have been provided with sufficient information about the design.

With regard to notifiable projects, a Designer should not start work until a CDM Co-ordinator has been appointed and  they have sufficient information about the design to enable them to comply with their duties.

Contractors:

The Contractor should not start work until the Client is aware of its duties and the Contractor has ensured that any contractors or sub-contractors that it intends to use are informed of the minimum amount of time they will be allowed to plan and prepare.  Every worker should have sufficient information and training for their particular work.

Principal Contractors:

Their duties fall into 3 categories:

  1. Main duties;
  2. Duties related to the construction phase plan; and
  3. Co-operation and consultation.

Overall, Principal Contractors must plan, manage and monitor the construction phase of the project to encourage co-operation and co-ordination between the relevant construction team members.  In addition, they must draw up the construction phase plan, ensure that every worker has a sufficient site induction, is provided with information and training and consult with the representatives of the workforce on matters of health, safety and welfare.

What is a health and safety file?

The CDM Co-ordinator is responsible for creating and revising this document for notifiable projects.  They must liaise with all of the relevant members of the construction team to ensure that the file contains information for the future construction, maintenance, refurbishment or demolition of the structure, in order that the future work is carried out safely.

Are there any strategies I can adopt for a ‘best practice’ approach?

It is important that you integrate health, safety and risk management into the corporate culture by considering the level of “risk”, reducing or eliminating the “risk” wherever possible and keep the “risk” under review.  A paper trail of this process will be invaluable when you audit your compliance with the Regulations or you are asked to illustrate your adoption of the “best practice” approach.

Where do I go for help?

The Approved Code of Practice accompanies the new 2007 Regulations and assists with practical guidance on interpreting and applying the Regulations as well as suggesting ways of improving cooperation and coordination.

Berrymans Lace Mawer

Article Contaminated Land

Managing residual risks of land contamination

- by
Tags: brownfield environmental insurance

The successful trading, development and regeneration of brownfield sites requires stakeholders to acknowledge and manage environmental risks effectively to realise
the potential returns. Whilst many risks associated with the project require careful consideration, the management of environmental risks can have a profound effect on the success, or failure, of a development project. Get it “right” and the developer and investment partners can reap immense rewards. Get it “wrong” and environmental issues have the potential not only to jeopardise any financial gain on the project, but present long-term liabilities to those involved.

Of course, developers cannot simply adopt a “zero risk” attitude to environmental issues when it comes to brownfield sites, particularly given the current climate of increasing costs of landfilling. Avoiding sites with actual or perceived environmental
risks could result in missed opportunities as a result of deciding not to proceed with a purchase, however budgeting for overly stringent remedial standards during development can risk losing a site to a less conservative competitor. It is not only major regeneration schemes that require careful assessment. Arguably, the adoption of adequate risk management procedures is even more important for small brownfield sites, where margins will tend to be tighter.

Residual Risk and Uncertainty
The drive towards the use of “innovative” remediation techniques, particularly those involving the in-situ treatment of soil or groundwater pollution, brings with
it the need to address residual contamination risks.

The application of risk-based remediation criteria, whilst an entirely credible and practical solution for modern day brownfield site regeneration, is designed to reduce risks to acceptable levels based on the current status of scientific knowledge, legislation, and (perhaps even more importantly) enforcement practice. Predicting future trends in any one of these factors is prone to significant uncertainties. One only has to look at the progress made (or lack of it) on Soil Guideline Values in recent years, and the Water Framework Directive to realise that this is an area ripe for changes in enforcement practice, raising the spectre of cases being re-opened some years after remedial works have been “signed off” by regulators.

Developers will, understandably, want to realise a profit on their investment as quickly as possible, and will therefore tend to have a relatively short-term interest in a site. Long-tail liabilities associated with residual contamination will therefore typically not be of primary concern. However, other stakeholders such as investors,
lenders and sellers (particularly if the latter are the original polluter) may seek additional safeguards to protect themselves in the event that environmental risks are not entirely addressed through remediation. In many cases, it may be merely the perception of environmental risk, rather than specific risk factors that cause concern.

Solutions
The increasing availability of fixed price remediation contracts may seem to be the perfect panacea for developers looking to avoid the risk of cost-overrun. But what happens if additional contamination is found that falls outside the scope of the contract, either during or after completion of the remedial works?

The first reaction may be to try to take action against the environmental consultant or contractor responsible for designing and implementing the remediation scheme. This is unlikely to be successful, unless either party has been clearly negligent, or the
engineered solution has failed within the warranty period. General liability and property insurance policies will almost certainly offer no protection from ongoing ground contamination liabilities. By contrast, environmental insurance can offer a
cost effective solution to residual contamination risks.

Environmental insurance policies cover statutory clean-up requirements, third party claims for bodily injury and property damage, and associated legal expenses, resulting from contamination. The environmental market has softened in recent years, largely through increased competition, resulting in premium levels being approximately half what they were three years ago for comparable risks. Price is not everything of course, but there is also greater potential to secure coverage enhancements now than in previous years.

Whilst policies can be placed quickly and efficiently, it is important to use a specialist broker who is familiar with insurance market, policy wording and to ensure that any policy placed is tailored to meet the specific needs of the Client and project.

Do Claims Succeed?
In short, yes. Environmental insurance is a relatively
young insurance market, nonetheless we are seeing a maturing claims experience in the UK and elsewhere. During a recent survey by Willis, environmental insurers
indicated that up to 1 in 10 policies see claims activity, a trend that most insurers agree is increasing, both in terms of the frequency and magnitude of loss.

Case Study 1
A car dealership relocated one of its showrooms, with the intention of selling the site for residential development. Following the discovery of a widespread plume of petrol contamination caused by a petrol filling station formerly located at the site, remedial plans were prepared in agreement with the regulators. The petrol plume affected an
underlying aquifer, and also extended beneath surrounding residential properties.

The risk assessment reduced the uncertainty to a level that the developer was willing to take on the risk of funding the remediation works, in return for a purchase price reduction. Although there was general confidence that the remedial works would be successful in reducing both the risk and uncertainty the developer was concerned that the residual risk exposure could be significant, particularly as they were required to indemnify the seller. The developer therefore purchased environmental insurance to safeguard against the possibility of future additional clean-up costs or third party
claims following completion of the remediation, for example as a result of “rebound” of the plume or future health impacts caused by inhalation of petrol vapours by residents.

Case Study 2
This illustrates a recent example where liabilities of residual contamination, the costs of which ran into six figures, were successfully claimed on an environmental insurance policy.

A landowner implemented remedial works following the discovery of hydrocarbon contamination beneath their site. The original polluter had ceased trading some years earlier, leaving the current owner liable for the remediation, which was planned and undertaken with the agreement of the regulators.  Upon commencement of the works, the landowner also took out an environmental insurance policy to cover
the possibility of additional future clean-up works being required as a result of unidentified contamination being present beneath the site. Due to site access constraints, it had not initially been possible to investigate in all areas.

The remediation achieved the required target, and was duly “signed off” by the regulators, upon which the environmental insurer was obliged to provide for any further “on-site” clean-up costs under the policy terms. Following this, additional
contamination was identified which required further remediation, the costs of which were met by the environmental insurance policy.

For more information or to discuss other environmental risk transfer solutions, please contact

Fiona Gray
Willis Environmental Practice
Tel: +44 (0)207 488 8111
grayf@willis.com

Ten Trinity Square
London EC3P 3AX
www.willis.com

Willis Limited, Registered number: 181116 England and Wales. Registered address: Ten Trinity Square, London EC3P 3AX. A Lloyd’s Broker. Authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority.

Article Data Management

Diggs ploughs on in quest for improved data handling

- by
Tags: Geoenvironmental Geotechnical

The DIGGS (Data Interchange for Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists) working group is continuing.  DIGGS is an international initiative to extend the data transfer format not only to other countries, but also to other parts of the geotechnical industry, such as piling and infrastructure management. It has been based on the AGS data format, which is the only truly international data transfer format in use. At the same time the opportunity has been taken to implement modern IT technology such as XML and GML.

DIGGS is promoted by:

  • The United States Federal Highways Administration
  • The United Kingdom Highways Agency
  • Twelve US Departments of Transport
  • The United States Geological Survey
  • The United States Army Corps of Engineers
  • The United States Environmental Protection Agency
  • CIRIA (the UK Construction Industry Research and Information Association)
  • AGS (the UK Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists)
  • COSMOS (Consortium of Organizations for Strong-Motion Observation Systems)
  • The University of Florida

Further details of DIGGS can be found at   www.diggsml.com  and www.diggsml.org

DIGGS will be implemented through a group of SIGs, (Special Interest Groups) who will look after the national and disciplines within the geotechnical industry.   In the UK this will be the AGS and the next version of the AGS data format, which has the development title of “AGS4”, will be DIGGS compliant.  Work is underway to ensure that this version is thoroughly integrated with the interests of the UK Ground Industry, including the provision of specifications and contract clauses for its use.     Documentation for the users, developers and managers of companies using the format is in preparation.

Before it can be adopted, it is essential that the relevant software is available to implement this new format.  Whilst specialist software will be required to obtain maximum advantage, the fact that the format is in the universal XML language will open up the possibilities of using many other software packages directly.  This will govern the release date of the format, and it is inevitable and intentional that AGS3 will continue for some time into the future. It is intended that software to convert AGS3 files to AGS4 will be made available.

DIGGS will build on the AGS data format and be an opportunity to promote the work carried out by the Ground Investigation industry, to raise the profile of work and provide the means to streamline the work process. It provides the next steps for improved handling of data at all stages of a project from investigation through to construction and completion.  It will include geotechnical, geo-environmental, construction and asset management information within one system.

 

CALL FOR PAPERS

A Workshop will take place on 18 June, 2008 at the National Motorcycle Museum in Birmingham, the spiritual home of the AGS Data Format group.  The Workshop is provisionally entitled “Site Investigation to Piling, and the availability of Electronic data”.

Papers are invited, in particular case histories are always welcome

Article Laboratories

Two new guidance documents on ground gases

- by
Tags: gases Guidance

The RSK/NHBC “Guidance on evaluation of development proposals on sites where methane and carbon dioxide are present” is now available as a free download pdf, on the NHBC Builder website – www.nhbcbuilder.co.uk . (Go to building support services/technical advice and support/publications).

CIRIA’s publication on “Assessing risks posed by hazardous gases to buildings (C659)” is currently being updated and will be re-published as report C665 – “Assessing risks posed by hazardous ground gases to buildings (revised)”.  Copies will be available from late May, and advance orders for copies of this title can be purchased from the Ciria bookshop (www.ciriabooks.com).

Article Laboratories

Classification and testing in BS 5930 and BS 1377-9

- by
Tags: Geotechnical testing

The BSI Committee for Geotechnical Testing has been working to help provide guidance on the changes to geotechnical testing methods introduced by new EN ISO standards.

The National Forewords to the following standards have been changed and now provide clause by clause details of where the new standards impact on BS 5930 and BS 1377-9:

BS EN ISO
14688-1:2002		 Geotechnical investigation and testing. Identification and classification of soil. Identification and description

Price £72*  Member Price £36     ISBN 0 580 40481 1
BS EN ISO
14688-2:2004		 Geotechnical investigation and testing. Identification and classification of soil. Principles for a classification

Price £72*  Member Price £36     ISBN 0 580 47508 5
BS EN ISO
14689-1:2003		 Geotechnical investigation and testing. Identification and classification of rock. Identification and description

Price £102*  Member Price £51     ISBN 0 580 43574 1
BS EN ISO
22476-2:2005		 Geotechnical investigation and testing. Field testing. Dynamic probing

Price £118*  Member Price £59  ISBN 0 580 47636 7
BS EN ISO
22476-3:2005		 Geotechnical investigation and testing. Field testing. Standard penetration test

Price £102*  Member Price £51     ISBN 0 580 47637 5

These amended documents are now available.

The relevant sections in the BS documents are now superseded and BS 5930 and BS 1377-9 are being amended in the short term to remove those conflicting sections.

In the long term a much broader revision of the British Standards is necessary, not only to cater for further European test methods, but particularly following the publication of BS EN ISO 22475-1 Geotechnical investigation and testing which was implemented in March 2007.

It is important to note that where conflict arises between British and European standards the BS EN ISO documents take precedence and should be used.

Ways to order:
Contact BSI’s Customer Services team quoting reference 5390D-SA
Call + 44 (0)20 8996 9001
Fax + 44 (0)20 8996 7001
Email orders@bsi-global.com

*P&P: Charge of £5.95 UK (inclusive of VAT) added to subtotal.