Article Business Practice Data Management

Drilling into Coal Authority’s assets

- by
Tags: Coal permission

The Coal Authority was established under the Coal Industry Act 1994. All in situ coal, old mineworkings, current mineworkings and all shaft and adits vested in British Coal are owned by the Coal Authority. As a consequence formal permission is required from the Coal Authority if any of these assets are to be disturbed. Such ‘Permission to enter or disturb Coal Authority mining interests’ will therefore be required for all ground investigations which will intercept any coal seams in the ground.

The Coal Authority charge a fee for the permit based on the size of the site – i.e. £100 per 0.1hectare up to maximum of £2500 for large sites. If such a permit is not obtained then the company undertaking the work would be guilty of a trespass and liable to court action. In situations where a permit is applied for retrospectively the fees are doubled so there would be a potential cost of up to £5000. The requirement has been in place for some time but fees were recently increased significantly.

The application would normally be formally submitted by the client rather than the AGS but the AGS Member would be responsible for advising the client of the requirement for the permit.

Article Business Practice

Benchmarking Survey Results

- by
Tags: Key Performance Indicators survey

The Business Practice WG would like to thank all those who contributed to the site investigation benchmarking survey initiative.

The survey ran from June 2005 to March 2006 and included 58 projects, evenly split between the public and private sectors and ranging in value from £2.5k to £400k.

Members were asked to complete a ‘tick box’ questionnaire developed by the Working Group to cover eleven Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). The KPI categories are summarised below:

 

KPI (1)           Appointment (Personnel, Responsibilities)

KPI (2)           Preparation (Desk Study, Walkover Survey, Reports)

KPI (3)           Design (SI Design, Laboratory Testing)

KPI (4)           Risk Management (Risk, Availability of Information)

KPI (5)           Procurement ( GI Procurement Route , SI Award, Method of Measurement, Conditions of Contract, Specification)

KPI (6)           Management (Project Management, Quality Management, Environmental Management)

KPI (7)           Supervision

KPI (8)           Reporting (Factual)

KPI (9)           Reporting (Interpretative Report, Ground Model)

KPI (10)         Outcome

KPI (11)         Client Satisfaction

 

The results are presented below in the form of a series of spider diagrams selected to filter the data so that potential trends / anomalies can be identified. The accompanying comments are made as observations only.

All Data

Highest scores were recorded for KPI 1(Appointment), KPI 4 (Risk Management), KPI 8 (Factual Reporting) and KPI 9 (Interpretative Reporting). No scores dropped below 5 and the lowest score was recorded for KPI 2 (Preparation), see Consultant / Contractor split below. The results are presented as the pink line in Figure 1.

Consultant / Contractor Split

An approximately equal number of responses were received from Consultants, Contractors and Contractor Consultants. Figure 1compares the results returned from Contractors and Consultants.

KPI 2 (Preparation) shows greatest variation in responses and shows Contractors recorded an average score of just over 2 for this KPI. The reason for this is unclear but may have been influenced by the ‘tick box’ options which would return a low score if a desk study had not been seen.

For KPI 5 (Procurement), KPI 6 (Management) and KPI 11 (Client Satisfaction) Contractors scored projects more highly than Consultants. All other KPIs were scored more highly by the Consultants.

Small and Large Project Split (£20k)

Approximately half the projects in the survey had a value of more than £20k. The results for the £20k split are presented in Figure 2and indicate that projects with a value of a more  than £20k attained a higher score for KPI (1) (Appointment), KPI 2 (Preparation), KPI 9 (Reporting) and KPI10 (Outcome), but surprisingly scored lower for KPI 11 (Client Satisfaction).

Geotechnical / Geoenvironmental Split

It can be seen from Figure 3 that for KPI 3 (Design) and KPI 10 (Outcome) investigations undertaken for geoenvironmental purposes scored more highly than those undertaken for geotechnical purposes, but attained a lower score for KPI 4 (Risk Management) and KPI 5 (Procurement). This is interesting as a greater score would be obtained for KPI4 if environmental protection measures were in place. The reason for the variation in KPI 5 is unclear.

 The Next Stage

  The next stage will be to take the survey to a number of large public and private client bodies. Watch this space to see how they rate the industry.

Article Contaminated Land Laboratories

Annual meeting comes to London

- by
Tags: annual meeting soil quality

The annual meeting of ISO/TC190 (Soil Quality) is to be held in London this year at the BSi Headquarters, Gunnersbury near Hammersmith, from October 9th – 13th 2006. The venue country alternates between EEC countries and non-EEC countries. Last year it was held in Tokyo . It also hosts a meeting of the CEN/TC345 committee.

The meeting will discuss ISO and CEN standards for soil quality that are currently being developed and will consider existing standards that are due for review. Currently BS10175 is due for review!

Project Horizontal will also be on the agenda which is a process by which similar tests for various industries are amalgamated into a single horizontal standard which then automatically becomes a European standard if it meets the required approval criteria, determined by a vote of the participating countries. Project Horizontal is working on a number of tests relevant to AGS members which lend themselves quite readily to the ‘horizontal’ approach.

Of particular interest is the CEN TC345 project on the characterisation of sludge which is developing chemical test methods required since the issue of the Sludge Directive.

Delegates will be coming from many parts of the world including; European, EEC and EEC applicant countries, Russia , Japan andAustralia . They are generally members of national standardisation bodies drawn from direct employees and academics and consultants working in the soil science disciplines; this includes environmental, geoenvironmental and geotechnical specialists and practitioners.

BSI are looking for sponsorship to pay for the administration costs not covered by BSi, and for providing a formal dinner and excursions for the delegates. The BSI EH/4 committee hope that that some members of the AGS may be willing to help as sponsors. They are looking for £250 from businesses of 20 or less employees and £500 from bigger companies.  The number of sponsors accepted will be limited to the amount of sponsorship required and thus sponsor’s exposure to this wide array of delegates will not be swamped by a huge amount of literature.

The benefits of being a sponsor are as follows:

Small business sponsors will be offered a marketing package opportunity for £250 of the following:

  • their company logo on the back of the menu card;
  • a leaflet in the ISO/TC190 meeting pack (handed out on the first day of meetings);
  • one company employee to attend the Formal Dinner free of charge.

Large business sponsors will be offered a marketing package opportunity for £500 of the following (they will not be offered a £250 sponsorship package):

  • their company logo on the back of the menu card;
  • a leaflet in the ISO/TC190 meeting pack (handed out on the first day of meetings);
  • multiple company employees to attend the formal dinner (free of charge for the first two);
  • marketing board at the restaurant of choice (if approved by the restaurant of choice).

The EH4 Committee agreed that this event is a great networking opportunity for the industry.

A seminar on MCERTS will also be held and sponsors will be allowed free entry on the same basis as the meal.

Should your company wish to sponsor this international meeting please contact me in the first instance, peter.rodd@jacobs.com

Peter Rodd
Jacobs GIBB Ltd

Article Safety

Drilling down into industry safety

- by
Tags: HSE risk assessment

Site investigation companies should expect increased HSE attention following the recent successful prosecution of CET Limited following an accident where a drill rig operator was forced several times through a 24cm gap between the mast and the auger. Guarding and stopping devices were considered inadequate and not in compliance with the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER).  CET were fined £20,000 (plus costs of £30,000) under Section 2 of the Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

A second, recent, incident, were the operator suffered a broken shoulder and two broken arms in similar circumstances only serves to underline the seriousness of ignoring the PUWER requirements.

Many AGS Members will already have received a letter from the HSE clarifying the legal responsibilities of employers to safe guard their employees.

Legal Requirements

Under current UK legislation employers’ legal duties include the following:

  • To ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health & safety of their employees.
  • To undertake a suitable & sufficient assessment of the risks to health & safety to which their employees, as well as other people, are exposed arising from their undertaking or work.  The significant outcomes of the assessment will normally have to be recorded.
  • To provide effective measures to prevent access to any dangerous part of machinery.
  • To ensure that, where appropriate, work equipment is fitted with one or more readily accessible controls to bring the machine to a complete stop where necessary for health & safety reasons (an emergency stop).
  • To ensure that, apart from where necessary, no control for work equipment is positioned where it would cause a risk to the health & safety of the operator.

Common Failures

Recent investigation by HSE has shown that people may be being placed at risk due to one or more of the following reasons:

  • A risk assessment has not been done & acted upon.
  • A risk assessment has been done but is neither suitable & sufficient in that it does not correctly identify the measures that could reasonably be taken to eliminate or reduce the risks identified.
  • Access to the dangerous rotating parts of the drilling machinery is not effectively prevented in line with the hierarchy of protective measures given in the Provision & Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER) & backed up in the BDA guidance.
  • Insufficient or inadequate emergency stops are provided.
  • The operator position places them in close proximity to the rotating part of machinery.
  • The nature of the work undertaken requires close approach to a rotating part of machinery.
  • Operators are not adequately trained or supervised.

Risk Assessment

The purpose of a risk assessment is for an employer to identify the risks his employees, & others affected by his work, may be exposed to.  Once this is done the employer should identify the measures that need to be taken to deal with these risks.

The primary aim should always be to completely eliminate any risk identified e.g. by effective guarding; where this is not practicable the risk must be reduced as much as possible by safe systems of work & the provision of information, instruction & training.

HSE has found that drilling equipment frequently requires close approach to the rotating drill string whether to operate controls, to take samples, backfill or for other reasons.  This obviously increases the risk of people becoming entangled if access to the dangerous part of machinery is not effectively prevented.  Any risk assessment needs to recognise the implications of this risk & ensure that the protective measures chosen offer the highest practicable level of protection.  Large piling rigs are covered by separate guidance produced by the Federation of Piling Specialists in liaison with HSE taking into account the different nature of the risks.

Levels of Protection

PUWER lays out a clear hierarchy of protective measures that is further clarified with direct reference to the drilling industry in the BDA guidance*.  In simple terms the hierarchy for preventing access to the rotating parts of a drilling rig is as follows:

  • A fixed guard that requires physically unbolting.
  • A moveable guard with an interlock cutting rotational power when opened.
  • An adjustable guard (i.e. a fixed or moveable guard with adjustable parts or whole), the adjustable part must be interlocked. These are commonly described as “telescopic”.
  • A caged working area that is interlocked thus preventing risk from rotation when anyone is in the area.
  • Trip wires or bars.
  • Proximity sensors or light beams.
  • Training & supervision.
  • Appropriate clothing with no loose attachments.

The last two points are not “stand-alone” measures but should be provided in all cases.  

Where access to the rotating drill string is to be prevented by a guard it should extend from 0.5 metres above ground level in all cases to 2 metres above ground level or 2 metres above the operator position if elevated.  The rotating drill string, even at relatively low speeds, is an extremely dangerous part of machinery.  The law demands that the highest practicable level of protection should be supplied to prevent access to the dangerous part.  As the BDA guidance quite correctly states in the “protective devices selection” section the actual decision must be made impartially & with safety, not time or cost, as the overriding concern.

In HSE’s opinion, given the practical operational difficulties a fully fixed guard would give, the best practicable solution in the majority of cases will be some form of moveable, interlocked guard.

It should be remembered that the rotating drill string is always to be considered a dangerous part of machinery from which people require the highest practicable means of protection.  This will not always be the most convenient or cheapest option available.

Where manufacturers are no longer trading, or effective guards are not yet available, bespoke guarding options can be retrofitted easily in most cases.

Trip Wires, Stop Bars & Light Beams

Trip wires & stop bars are included in the hierarchy but they are clearly a lower level of protection than a physical guard be it interlocked or fixed.  In order to activate a trip wire or stop bar the person is usually already entangled given the proximity of the device to the drill; plus due to the “wind-down” time further injury is likely once the device is activated.

PUWER requires access to be prevented – trip wire, stop bar or light beam type fixtures positioned in close proximity to the drill string will not usually prevent access to it.  They may reduce the level of injury once a person is entangled but they do not prevent the accident occurring.

Only where a physical guard which effectively prevented access was evidently impracticable would HSE consider a trip wire, light beam, pressure pad or stop bar arrangement a realistic option; further additional measures may also be needed to lower the risk to an acceptable level, for example, relocating operator positions, the fitting of devices to remove spoil automatically preventing repeated activation, a strict regime of maintenance & testing & close supervision.

Emergency Stops

At least one emergency stop should be fitted to each rig, one being next to the operator position.  Such stops must be separate from the usual off switch & require manual re-set so that they cannot fail to danger once activated.  They should be so designed as to bring the part of the operation causing the danger to a complete halt in the shortest achievable amount of time.

Other Considerations

Whilst the risk of injury arising from entanglement is a major risk in operating drilling rigs it is not the only area of concern for the industry.

Risk assessments should also address other associated risks to safety & health.  For example, risks from overhead power lines, underground services, vehicle movements, noise, falling objects, manual handling, soil contamination, the availability of proper welfare facilities to name but a few.

Conclusion

The entanglement risks faced by those operating, or working in close proximity to, drilling rigs are well known.  The legal requirements to protect people are similarly well known & the guidance clear.

The key factor in protecting people from these dangerous machines is a realistically robust risk assessment & the provision of a truly effective means of preventing access to the dangerous part.

HSE will expect to see the highest practicable level of protection in place with full justification for measures from further down the hierarchy where they are found.

We hope that the above guidance is clear enough to leave you in no doubt about the level of protection required.  If HSE has to investigate any further accidents of this kind we will take into account the additional guidance in this annex & letter we have provided to you/your Company in deciding what enforcement action may be appropriate.

============================

 

*  “Guidance Notes for the Protection of Persons from Rotating Parts & Ejected or Falling Material Involved in the Drilling Process” can be supplied by the. British Drilling Association (BDA)  Tel: 01327 264 62

Article Data Management

Electronic tendering protocol for geotechnical works

- by
Tags: borehole electronic Geotechnical Site Investigation
  • All electronic information provided on an extranet shall be properly indexed and organised with all information relevant to the geotechnical works being easily identifiable.
  • All electronic information provided on a CD or DVD, or similar, shall be properly indexed and organised with all information relevant to the geotechnical works being easily identifiable.
  • It is preferable that only information specifically relating to the geotechnical works is provided.
  • All electronic information shall be provided in .pdf format that is easy to read and locked so that no unauthorised amendments can be made.  This information may include:
  1. Contract conditions
  2. Specifications and schedules
  3. Site investigation reports, including the borehole logs
  4.  Drawings
  • Drawings shall also be provided unlocked in AutoCAD .dwg format
  • Relevant forms shall also be provided unlocked in MS Word or Excel format.
  • All schedules shall also be provided unlocked in MS Excel format.
  • Site Investigation data shall also be provided in AGS format.
Article Business Practice

AGS data: improving the flow

- by
Tags: boreholes e-commerce Geotechnical IT

Mark Shaw of the Business Practise Working Group recently attended a meeting of the Federation of Piling Specialists (FPS) Technical Committee to further explore areas of common ground with respect to IT and e-Commerce.

Three main issues were discussed:

  • Online Bidding
  • Electronic Tendering Protocol
  • The use of AGS data format

Online Bidding

Both the AGS and FPS have now published position papers concerning the use of on-line bidding for the procurement of geotechnical contract.  Both organisations have expressed some reservations. The full position papers can be found on the AGS and FPS websites (www.fps.org.uk and www.ags.org.uk).

Electronic Tendering Protocol  

A survey of AGS members carried out in 2003 revealed that nearly 75% of those who responded had tendered for contracts based upon electronic information and of those 75% indicated that tendering based upon electronic information had not saved them any time. The main reasons highlighted for this were:

  • Poor Indexing (Can’t find the right information).
  • Too much irrelevant information (Information Overload)
  • Fixed formatting (Not able to manipulate the data provided)

In an attempt to address this situation, the FPS and AGS have prepared a joint protocol for the presentation of electronic data when provided for tendering purposes. The purpose of the protocol is to encourage good practice with respect to indexing, the provision of relevant information, and the use of open electronic formats when inviting tenders based upon electronic information.

The AGS and FPS are seeking to promote the protocol within standard specifications for geotechnical works such as the new specifications for Site Investigation and the specification embedded walls.  A copy of the protocol is provided below.  If you have any comments to make on the protocol or how and where it should be promoted please contact Dianne Jennings at ags@ags.org.uk.

AGS Data  

The AGS data format is long established as the preferred format for exchanging electronic geotechnical and geo-environmental data within the UK and increasingly in many other countries around the world. The advantages in rapidly sharing data in a universal format between different organisations are clear and yet there are still many organisations still not using the format. The “cry” from the site investigation contractors is that AGS data is not being demanded by their clients. The “cry” from end users, such as FPS members, is that the data is not available.

Anecdotal evidence would suggest that most site investigation contractors are both willing and able to produce AGS data and equally many sub-contractors and sub-consultants are keen to use AGS data.  There seems to be some blockage in the chain preventing the data getting from source to user (see diagram).

The FPS and AGS have agreed jointly to attempt to clear this blockage, focusing in the first instance on the use of AGS data by piling contractors.

This problem is trying to be addressed from both ends:

  • The FPS has requested its members to routinely ask for AGS data when tender invitations are received without it. Although this may not always elicit data, the regular request should help build awareness that there is a need for the data.
  • The AGS is seeking to encourage site investigation contractors to promote the need for AGS data and to make it readily available. Simple actions make include :
  • Using the AGS data format logo on boreholes and reports to indicate that AGS data is available.
  • Making AGS data available on request either free, or for a very nominal charge (giving due consideration to their contractual obligations).
  • Being aware that when requested the AGS data is needed rapidly, typically within half a day from receipt of the request, for tendering piling contractors.

Quite understandably site investigation contractors may feel it inappropriate to provide the information to an organisation that is not their client.  This difficult issue is still being considered further by the Business Practice working group.  In the meantime, a questionnaire is being prepared to gather the thoughts and views from site investigation contractors and this will be distributed later in the year.

If you have any comments or thoughts on any of the issues raised please contact Dianne Jennings who will put you in contact with the relevant working Group member.

Article Data Management

A new perspective in geological mapping

- by
Tags: format geological

A new on-line service called CENTREMAPSlive® provides a means to buy custom extracts of geological mapping in a uniquely accessible
new format.

In the past geological mapping has either been available as a paper map or data for use in GIS systems. The former offers limited interaction
whilst the latter requires often complex software and a lot of effort to output a professional looking map; particularly where the user is looking for mapping on a site by site basis.

CENTREMAPSlive® uses a layered PDF format which can be quickly ordered and downloaded from the site.  A sample can be download from
the web site www.centremapslive.co.uk by going to the ‘geological mapping’ section.

On opening the document the user clicks the ‘Layers’ tab to reveal the option to turn on and off layers such as Bedrock, Superficial, Faults
and more all overlaid on the most up to date Ordnance Survey mapping. This intuitive design means the user can quickly choose to see as
much or as little information as required without having to buy several maps.

The data is supported by both a bedrock and a superficial geology legend which only lists rocks found in the supplied mapping.

In addition to the familiar BGS 1:50,000 geological mapping, BGS GeoSure is available offering a rating of land stability for 6 different factors comprising: Slope Instability; Shrink-Swell; Running Sand; Compressible; Collapsible and Soluble Rocks.

Andrew Terry, Manager
CENTREMAPS® / CENTREMAPSlive®
www.centremapslive.co.uk

Article Contaminated Land Laboratories

Testing times for soils

- by
Tags: chemical contaminated MCERTS soils

The Environment Agency has issued a revised version of its MCERTS policy for the chemical testing of soils. The Agency established its Monitoring Certification Scheme (MCERTS) to ensure high standards of environmental monitoring, and in 2003 it extended the scheme to include soils testing. The Agency’s policy is that the MCERTS standard should apply to all chemical testing of soil where the results are submitted to the Agency for regulatory purposes.

This latest version of the policy clarifies the Agency’s position on in situ testing. The Agency believes that in situ testing has a valuable complementary role to play in improving the quality of site investigation and remediation as well as reducing costs. Appropriate on site testing can be used for improved targeting of conventional sampling, better spatial delineation of contaminated areas, and the development of conceptual site models.

The document has been published on the Land Contamination section of the Agency’s web site at:

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/subjects/landquality/113813/590825/?version=1&lang=_e

Article Contaminated Land Laboratories

Modernising Waste Regulation – Environment Agency Update

- by
Tags: assessments risk waste

Exemptions

Under new procedures “simple” exempt activities can now be registered by calling the National Customer Contact Centre on 08708 506506.   Trained advisors will provide basic advice and offer the option of registering by phone, email or using a two page form. An online web based system will also be introduced in the future. More complex exemptions, including all chargeable exemptions, will continue to be dealt with by local Area staff who have to undertake a site specific risk assessment.

Waste Licensing

“Fixed licences” are now available for the most popular waste activities (such as transfer stations and compost activities).   Working plans or site specific risk assessments are no longer required.  The application form is simpler and licences are slightly cheaper and quicker to obtain, particularly if planning permission is already in place. Applications should be made locally in the same way as previously.

Fixed licences will not be subject to change. Variations in operations may require a bespoke licence, as at present.

Environment Agency, April 2006

Article Contaminated Land Laboratories

The problem of made ground

- by
Tags: analysis brownfield sites Environment Agency Geoscientists laboratory MCERTS soil

The categorisation, analysis and reporting of ‘made ground’ is a recurring nightmare for the modern laboratory. Traditionally a by-product of land reclamation schemes, a container of the stuff can contain traces of anything from steel, concrete and brick to nappies and Coke cans – and that’s on a good day.

Ask anyone from the engineer taking samples at the coalface to the men in white coats analysing them, and you will find that there is no all-encompassing approach to deal with the ‘made ground’ conundrum. Nevertheless, with brownfield sites being universally hailed as the sustainable way forward, now, more than ever before, is the time to seriously evaluate the methods employed both on-site and in the laboratory and try to circumvent the insidious ‘no easy answer’ maxim.

Much of the confusion goes back to the introduction of the Environment Agency’s Monitoring Certification Scheme (MCERTS) for the chemical testing of soils. Any laboratory operating under this banner has to submit results that fulfil both the general requirements of ISO/IEC 17025 and the specific method validation and performance requirements of MCERTS. The latter is problematic for laboratories dealing with made ground, inasmuch as it requires samples to conform to specific sample matrices in order for the results to become accredited. For relatively unadulterated soils, this has meant the creation of soil classification categories such as ‘loamy soil’, ‘sandy soil’ or ‘clay type soil’. It is worth noting that while some geotechnical engineers may see this as a tenuous oversimplification, it is widely regarded as the best available approach and has the full endorsement of the Environment Agency and UKAS – albeit based on economical drivers. Made ground’s inherent ambiguity throws a rather obtrusive spanner in the works when faced with these basic matrices and prompts all manner of interpretive stances and questions. Some good starters for ten: can you report made ground results as accredited? Is it possible to report them as ‘unaccredited’ to make it clear to the engineer that the sample does not fall into a clear defined matrix?

It isn’t just an issue of categorisation – the whole process, from preparation to final report, is divested of any consistency as laboratories adopt their own approach by asking questions such as do we dry the sample? Do we mill the sample to uniform particle size? Do we discard anything over 2mm? Do we ignore everything that is not soil? None of these methods will provide an inaccurate result per se, but each has the potential to give a misleading picture of the site.

If, in addition to that head-scratching list of questions, you consider the fact that the commercially driven nature of redevelopment schemes has turned laboratories into high-tech, scientific conveyor belts, the complexities of the problem becomes increasingly pronounced. It is a crossroads situation reliant on good judgement, experience and, above all, a decent sample. It is impossible to overstate the critical nature of the latter point: without a comprehensive sample, the laboratory cannot do its job. In other words, it cannot capture the essence of a site’s industrial legacy and act as a signpost to the appropriate action.

Though MCERTS has to a certain extent raised the standards in the laboratory, it missed an opportunity by not offering any guidance to the geotechnical engineer on the best available techniques (BAT) for sampling, storage and transportation; nor does it elaborate on the consequences of incorrect, inappropriate or inadequate sampling. The reason the EA has put the onus on the laboratories is understandable – to allow continuity of testing pre- and post-MCERTS – but the resultant confusion and knowledge deficit, particularly with regards to sampling, is less than satisfactory.

As throwing legislation at the problem is unlikely to be constructive, the best achievable course of action is to engender a milieu of interdisciplinary compatibility fuelled by open lines of communication, intellectual communality and the symbiotic sharing of knowledge. Geoscientists should learn how to adequately describe their sample, how to make the sample manageable for the laboratory and to understand the laboratory machinations of sample preparation, analysis and reporting. By the same token, chemists should acquire some field experience, learn about the conditions engineers face on-site and educate themselves on the processes that inform geotechnical sampling techniques.

If the question of how to produce consistently accurate results from made ground is reducible to a single answer, it can only be to ask more questions: what are the limitations of the selected analytical method? If there are limitations, do they matter in this case? On what basis is the data reported? Does it match the basis on which my acceptance criteria are calculated? Has the sample data been generated in ideal conditions using ideal standards which are unlikely to represent the conditions on my site? Add a soupçon of communication, wait for MCERTS to catch up and we’re well on our way.

Andrew Buck PhD, MSc, CSci, CChem, FRSC is the Technical Director of Envirolab (www.envlab.co.uk)

Article Contaminated Land

BS10175: Investigation of potentially contaminated sites, code of practice (2001) due for review

- by
Tags: contaminated

This review will be carried out by the BSi EH/4 Committee.  Following on from the official announcement, expected shortly, there will be a three month period in which to make comments on this British Standard.

Comments can be sent directly to BSi, following the announcement details.  Alternatively, comments can be sent to Peter Rodd (peter.rodd@jacobs.com), who will present them to the committee, by the end of August.

Peter Rodd
Jacobs GIBB Ltd

Article Loss Prevention

Semple Fraser adds Scottish dimension to Loss Prevention

- by
Tags: English law Guidance Scottish dimension

The Loss Prevention WG has been aware for some time that the alerts and advice issued to Members apply to English law only.

However this is set to change, with a new alliance with Semple Fraser, a leading commercial law firm in Scotland with a Construction Group that are willing to give a Scottish dimension to the AGS guidance.

Steven Francis (Eversheds), Chairman of the WG said, “We welcome this opportunity to improve our advice to Members and look forward to working with Semple Fraser to help our Scottish Members”.

AGS Members are invited to identify those areas – or existing AGS documents – which they think should be regarded as priority for Semple Fraser’s attention.