Article Contaminated Land Laboratories

PPC Site Reports – Change in EA Policy

- by
Tags: Environment Agency geology Integrated Pollution Prevention & Control land quality pollution

The Environment Agency issued a new policy and guidance on protection of land quality and preparation of site reports under the Integrated Pollution Prevention & Control (IPPC) regime in August 2003 (www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business) The aim of the changes is to place more emphasis on pollution prevention measures within the PPC permit rather than site investigation at the time of application. It also hoped that the change will speed up processing of permit applications by the EA.

The site report accompanying the permit application (now referred to as the Application Site Report) should normally comprise the results of a desk study and site reconnaissance only. This is similar to a Phase 1a site report in the EA’s earlier terminology. Completion of intrusive investigations at this stage is NOT required except in special cases, e.g. there is insufficient data on site geology to develop the site conceptual model.

There is also now a requirement for operators to prepare a Site Protection and Monitoring Programme (SPMP) detailing how pollution of land will be prevented during the life of the installation. This has to be submitted to the EA within 2 months of the permit being issued.

Intrusive investigations to obtain ‘reference data’ (i.e. a Phase 1b or 2 assessment) are only required for zones of the site where there is ‘a reasonable possibility of future pollution of the land’ from installation activities. The guidance states that such investigations will always be required for sites with bulk storage of liquid chemicals, inadequate preventative measures or a history of pollution incidents unless it can be shown that there is little likelihood of future pollution occurring. The investigations will form part of the SPMP and where required have to be submitted to the EA within 6 months of the permit being issued.

The EA has also issued templates for the Application Site Report, design and reporting of a Site Protection & Monitoring Programme.

These changes apply to all sites in England and Wales where PPC permits have yet to be issued. Policy and guidance in Scotland and Northern Ireland currently remain unchanged. There are clearly implications for AGS members to ensure that appropriate advice is being provided to site operators applying for permits and that the most up-to-date guidance is being used.

References

Technical Guidance Note by IPPC H7
Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Guidance on the Protection of Land under the PPC Regime: Application Site Report and Site Protection and Monitoring Programme
H7 Reporting Template 1 – Template for an Application Site Report in PPC Applications
H7 Reporting Template 2 – Design of a Site Protection and Monitoring Programme for Installations Requiring Reference Data to be Collected
H7 Reporting Template 3 – Design of a Site Protection and Monitoring Programme for Installations that DO NOT Require Reference Data to be Collected
H7 Reporting Template 4 – First Phase Reporting of the Site Protection and Monitoring Programme for Installations where Reference Data is Required
H7 Reporting Template 5 – First Phase Reporting of the Site Protection and Monitoring Programme for Installations where Reference Data is NOT Required

These can all be downloaded at www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business

Article Business Practice Contaminated Land Data Management Executive

AGS Response to Nigel Griffiths, MP

- by
Tags: brownfield land constraints Contaminated Land Environment Agency professional indemnity insurance

On his appointment as Minister for Construction, Nigel Griffiths wrote to all trade associations and professional bodies and invited them to submit a concise briefing note on the issues which Members feel are vital to making Britain world leaders in construction. He indicated that he expected the note to raise our main concerns.

After discussion in the Working Group and the Executive Committee, the following response was sent on behalf of the AGS:

Making Britain World Leaders in Construction

The Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists (AGS) is a trade association representing almost 100 companies who are specialists in ground engineering. Activities range from geotechnical engineering, ground investigation, and the design of foundations, to the geotechnical and chemical analysis of soil, rock and water and the identification, assessment and remediation of contaminated land.

In responding to the invitation from Nigel Griffiths MP for a concise briefing note, we have concentrated on issues on which our Members specialise and which are within the field of Government influence.

Additionally, the AGS as a Member of the Ground Forum, fully supports the comments made by Ground Forum, particularly in respect of, i) the need for greater funding of post graduate courses in geotechnical engineering and engineering geology; and ii) the need for clarity (possibly via a register) in defining areas of engineering expertise in order that clients can identify specialists with appropriate qualifications and experience for their projects.

1. Inadequate Ground Investigation 

The amount spent on investigation of the ground prior to construction is typically 1% to 5% of the whole project value (usually the lower end of this range). The cost of claims and additional expenses due to unexpected ground conditions (i.e. unexpected because the site investigation was not adequate) can be as high as 50% of the total cost overrun on the project. Furthermore, some (generally smaller) developments do not have any ground investigation at all. We believe very strongly, that an adequate ground investigation should be a requirement of the planning process. We understand that consideration is being given to harmonising building and planning regulations. This therefore presents an ideal opportunity to introduce such a requirement. We therefore propose that the Minister actively supports and promotes the introduction of such a requirement into the harmonised regime.

2. Insurance 

The current difficulties in the availability and cost of Employers Liability and Public Liability insurance have affected AGS Members, as other businesses. However, the major concern has been the soaring cost of Professional Indemnity insurance. This is compounded by the continuing trend for clients (including public sector clients) to require higher and higher levels of insurance cover with high/ unlimited limits of liability, often totally disproportionate to the value of the fees involved. This is particularly the case in regard to work involving contaminated land. It is a common misconception in many client organisations that a consultant’s Professional Indemnity policy is there to cover any loss incurred by the client, however such a loss occurs. This is of course, not the case. A consultant’s Professional Indemnity in there to protect the consultant in the event of a successful claim of negligence. All consultants in the AGS have signed up to our own Code of Conduct which is designed to ensure the potential for negligent act or omission is minimised. In addition, most companies have their own Quality Assurance system (many accredited through the British Standards Institute to relevant international standards, e.g. ISO14001). It is also a fact that to date the number of successful claims specific to our industry is very low.

It is therefore unfairly onerous on the industry for clients to require levels of Professional Indemnity cover and limitations of liability which are often out of all proportion to the fee charged for the services offered by our members (e.g. a liability level of £5m is commonly required for a project with a consultancy fee of less than £2,000). Such a requirement is particularly disadvantageous to small companies who are simply unable to obtain such cover, and are therefore excluded from contracts even when they have appropriate expertise and/ or relevant local knowledge.

Government and other public sector clients could helpfully demonstrate best practice in this respect by entering into such contracts with appropriate requirements for insurance (both level of cover and limit of liability) which reflect inter alia the fee for the project.

3. Onerous terms in Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) contracts

Members work for RDAs in connection with the assessment and remediation of contaminated land. The standard RDA contract terms require the consultant / contractor to provide a collateral warranty with unlimited liability for anyone using the site in the future, and to ensure that the site is ‘fit for purpose’ This is unreasonable on two counts:-

i) Neither unlimited indemnity nor ‘fitness for purpose’ can be covered by insurance . In the event of a successful claim therefore, the only recourse for the company will be to close down and surrender all their assets. This is a totally unacceptable way to enter into a contract.

ii) Contaminated land can be cleaned to a variety of standards, (e.g. the standard required for a factory car park is lower than that required for housing). It is not reasonable to expect the consultant /contractor, working to a specification (given by the RDA client) to warrant that the site will be suitable for all purposes and all users in the future – which is the legal implication of these terms. The normal standard is to warrant that the work has been carried out with due care and diligence.

RDAs (or their legal advisers) argue that their public duty requires these contract terms and that they will be held to account should a problem arise and the consultant/contractor is found to have limited liability. In reality, they are limiting their selection of consultants and contractors to the small number of concerns who are prepared, for what ever reason, to take the unreasonable risks that these contract terms represent. Furthermore, in pursuing this policy RDAs are endangering the Government’s targets for the redevelopment of brownfield land.

The Minister could usefully explore this matter with RDAs to ensure that an appropriate balance is obtained between the need to demonstrate appropriate accountability for public monies with the necessity of redeveloping brownfield land.

4. Environment Agency

Notwithstanding liaising with Environment Agency officials in our Committee and Working Group, in day to day, site specific activities, our members invariably find interaction with the Environment Agency extremely frustrating for a number of reasons:-

i) There is no consistency between local offices. Although the specialists in the EA issue guidance (generally after public consultation), there is no onus on local offices to follow the guidance. Consequently each office (and each officer within that office) follows their own understanding of how to implement the policy/guidance. Consequently a development which would be permitted in one area, in another faces undue, excessive costs, delays and may eventually be refused permission.

ii) There appears to be no way of appealing against a decision made by a local office even when higher officials acknowledge that the decision is wrong. The process of appeal is very unclear and local offices appear to have unchallengeable autonomy.

iii) Guidance essential to the development of brownfield land is delayed – often for years. For instance, only a very small number of soil guideline values (that specify the permissible amount of certain toxic chemicals in soil) have been issued. Chemicals not covered by SGV’s must be assessed in some other (unspecified) way. The EA has the right to reject the conclusion of the consultant if officials do not agree with the methodology. The local authority regulator is therefore in an impossible situation when trying to assess proposals for brownfield land redevelopment (particularly for housing schemes). The recent disbandment of the National Centre will exacerbate this problem.

iv) EA policy leads to uncertainty. Developers expect their consultants to be able to advise on the measures which must be taken in order to obtain planning permission. Because of the uncertainties (above), consultants cannot be confident in their advice. However, if the consultant’s advice turns out to be unacceptable to the EA (resulting in additional costs and delays) the client may try to recover costs from the consultant’s insurance – putting further pressure on insurance requirements and the viability of consultants businesses. (See Item 2).

Action, direction and resources to rectify these problems at the Environment Agency need to come from Government. The Environment Agency is not currently fulfilling its stated functions with an appropriate balance. Unless improved guidance, consistency and expertise is forthcoming from the Environment Agency, the Government targets for the remediation and redevelopment of brownfield sites will be seriously jeopardised.

5. Waste Management Licensing 

It is becoming increasingly clear that regeneration projects on brownfield sites are being frustrated by Waste Management Legislation and the Environment Agency’s approach to its implementation. The crux of the problem is the recent move by the Environment Agency to interpret the definition of waste more restrictively. The result is that a considerable number of practices on site that were not previously considered necessary to regulate now fall within waste management legislation. The consequence of this is as follows:

i) The requirement for / presence of a Waste Management License (WML) on a development site will severely inhibit redevelopment potential of many sites. This is particularly the case for re-development of large sites where phased development is the only way to make the redevelopment process financially viable. The presence of an active WML on a housing development would effectively prevent sale of homes during the development programme.

(ii) Property Blight: New houses built on ‘licensed’ land are often seen as being built on the equivalent of ‘Waste Tips’ resulting in loss of value. A recent RICS report suggests the negative effect on property prices can be as much as 40%

(iii) Loss of potential for re-use of site derived soils: The reluctance of construction companies to operate waste management licenses will result in materials defined as waste being removed to landfill rather than being re-used as secondary aggregates (and the consequent need to import virgin aggregates from quarries and pits, entailing haulage and other environmental impacts of quarrying).

DEFRA and ODPM are developing the option of a Single Regeneration Permit to overcome the problems highlighted above. In reality however, the government is progressing inappropriate and increasingly restrictive legislation in isolation of the legitimate needs of the construction industry. It is important to note that other European countries are not interpreting the legislation in the same way and are not imposing similar constraints on their construction industries. This restrictive approach will jeopardise the achievement of the Government’s target of 60% of new homes on brownfield sites. Government is therefore urged to address this matter will all interested parties and in particular the Environment Agency.

Article Business Practice Contaminated Land Laboratories

Soil Quality – BS ISO 17155:2002

- by
Tags: contaminated ecotoxic potential soil quality

Determination of Abundance and Activity of Soil Microflora Using Respiratory Curves

This standard specifies a test method for determining the activity of the active, heterotrophic microbial biomass in soils. The method is applicable to the monitoring of soil quality and to the evaluation of the ecotoxic potential of soils and soil materials. It is also applicable to soils that are contaminated experimentally in the field or laboratory (chemical testing) and for soils sampled along contamination gradients in the field.

It is one of a series of International Standards for biological test methods that have been adopted as British Standards – see list below. Further biological test methods are currently being processed in ISO TC190/SC4 (Soil quality – biological methods).

British Standards are available from BSI Customer Services 0208-8996-9001, fax 020-8996-7001, e-mail: orders@bsi-global.com, and www.bsi-global.com

Article

Soil Quality – BS EN ISO 14507:2003

- by
Tags: accuracy extraction procedure soil samples

Pretreatment of samples for determination of organic contaminants

This International Standard specifies three methods for the pretreatment of soil samples in the laboratory prior to the determination of organic contaminants: – if volatile organic compounds are to be measured; – if moderately volatile to non-volatile organic compounds are to be measured, if the result of the subsequent analysis must be accurate and reproducible, and if the sample contains particles larger than 2 mm and/or the contaminant is heterogeneously distributed; – if non-volatile organic compounds are to be measured and the extraction procedure prescribes a field- moist sample, or if the largest particles of the sample are smaller than 2 mm and the contaminant is homogeneously distributed. This procedure is also applicable if reduced accuracy and repeatability are acceptable. The pretreatment described in this International Standard is used in combination with an extraction procedure in which the contaminant is available for the extraction liquid. NOTE For the pretreatment of soil samples for the purposes of determining non-volatile inorganic compounds and physico-chemical soil characteristics, see ISO 11464

Article Business Practice Data Management

Guidelines for the Preparation of the Ground Report

- by
Tags: AGS Committee geotechnical interpretative reports ground reports industry standard

When the late Sir John Knill spoke to the AGS Committee in May 2000, he was less than complementary about the quality of many of the ground reports that he received in the course of his work as an expert witness. He suggested that the AGS should prepare guidance to signpost what should be included in an interpretative report on ground conditions and set a benchmark for good practice.

The original terms of reference were restricted to geotechnical interpretative reports but it quickly became evident that it would be inappropriate to treat interpretative reports in isolation from the other reports generated as part of the site investigation process. The concept of the Ground Report as a ‘live’ document developed from this realisation. It is ‘an account of the whole job from start to finish’ (Palmer, 1957).

it also became apparent that many of the proposals were equally applicable to some aspects of geoenvironmental projects. The extent of this applicability is explained by notes in the text.

This guidance is being made available on the AGS website in order to maximise its availability to the industry, as desired by Sir John Knill. It is hoped that it will be come the industry standard guide, and that it will be particularly beneficial to young geospecialists and those who train them.

Download (free of charge) from AGS Publications

Article Data Management

Users Guide to Adjudication

- by
Tags: Adjudication decision process

Adjudication was made a feature of all construction contracts by the ‘Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1966’ . Section 108 of the Act provides parties to a contract with a right to refer disputes arising from the contract to adjudication and sets out certain minimum procedural requirements which enable either party to refer the matter to an independent party who is then required to make a decision within 28 days.

Adjudication has several advantages over arbitration and litigation:-

  • it is relatively quick

  • it is relatively simple

  • in many cases there is no need to involve lawyers or other advisers

  • it is generally more cost effective than arbitration or litigation

It can be used at any stage of the contract (ie to decide contractual disputes with designers before construction begins, to resolve contractual disputes between contractors and subcontractors). It can be an effective way of dealing with payment problems as well as technical disputes. What is more, the right to adjudication exists, regardless of the contract and even if the contract is totally silent on the matter of adjudication.

The industry bodies (CIC, NSCC, BPF, SECGroup, CC) have prepared a very useful and comprehensive guide to the arbitration process. The publication tells you what adjudication is, helps you to establish whether you have the right to take a dispute to adjudication and discusses whether you need professional help. It sets out th steps you have to take to start an adjudication, and tells how to respond should you receive a notice of adjudication. It explains what happens during the adjudication process; what you can expect from the adjudicator’s decision, what your options are once the adjudicator has made his decision – and who pays the costs.

Perhaps the best news is that you can download all this helpful advice absolutely free from www.cic.org.uk (Suggestion: don’t delay, at present the link is on the home page, if you wait until you want it, it may not be as obvious!)

Article Data Management

At Last! Holeside Logging

- by
Tags: AGS data interchange format driller's notes Pocket PC software

By now we are all aware that the AGS data interchange format saves having to re-key borehole data, and that the earlier in its life the data is committed to AGS, the greater the benefit. Up to now the earliest practical opportunity to do so was after the borehole information had been written by hand, either by the driller or the on-site engineer. Typing up the driller’s notes is extremely time-consuming, and often requires a trained professional to correctly determine what needs to be entered. It is also at this stage, when the information is transcribed from the driller’s log to the computer, that most data errors are introduced.

The answer, of course, is to bring the computer to the drilling site, and enter the data immediately – an electronic version of the driller’s log. However, there are obvious problems with this idea. Standard laptops/palmtops are not waterproof or rugged enough, and rugged field computers are prohibitively expensive.

But now, with the arrival of Pocket PC technology, a solution is at hand. After 18 months of trials with a number of SI companies, software developers Key Systems Geotechnical have now launched their PDA exploratory hole logging system, PocketSI.

The problem of operation in all weathers and surviving the rigours of site work has been addressed by protecting the device in an Otterbox® armoured case that enables the touch screen and function buttons to be operated through a waterproof membrane.

iPAQ PDA in an OTTERBOX running PocketSIPocketSI synchronizing with its base station

The software is easy to use, very intuitive, and flexible enough to handle a wide range of on-site scenarios. It has a number of ‘optimized’ data interfaces for handling common tasks like trial pitting, dynamic probing and standard penetration tests.

It also makes light work of text and number entry by providing dropdown lists and simplified keypads. Longer text fields, such as sample or strata descriptions, even have ‘snippets’, or lists of common words and phrases that can be inserted simply by tapping the screen. Previously used complete field entries are stored in a list to be re-used for subsequent records.

Output is, of course, via AGS format, and data can be transmitted by email at frequent intervals during site investigation, or saved up until it can be downloaded to a PC. Most of these portable machines are capable of carrying non-volatile flash memory cards, so the data is safe even if the device becomes unserviceable.

The Pocket PC is well placed to exploit the merging of the telecommunications and computer technologies, and a number of models are already supplied with a built-in telephone.

For more information visit www.PocketSI.com

Article Safety

AGS Insurance Questions

- by
Tags: consultant damage Health and Safety negligence Public Liability Insurance

1. What is the insurance position if there is third party damage when acting as a consultant?

Basically the answer depends on two aspects:-

1. Who is responsible for the damage – i.e. who was negligent. 2. Was there any specific reference to liabilities within the contract?

Every person has a duty of care under the Common Law of the country towards every other person and their possessions. If you cause loss, damage, injury or death by your own negligence then you are responsible, irrespective of the capacity that you were acting in at the time of the occurrence.

A standard Public Liability Insurance covers you against your actions in the course of your business and will indemnify you against payments incurred (excluding fines), providing that you are proven to be negligent.

In a private capacity similar cover is provided by a Personal Liability policy.

It is possible that any contract you enter into may make some stipulation regarding responsibility – especially in relation to third party property. This may place or allocate responsibility but there must still be a negligent act to trigger the event.

There is a possibility that in some circumstances negligence – and therefore liability – could be apportioned between two parties involved in a single incident. A typical example could be where a Consultant is instructed specifically where to drill for soil samples – being assured by the Contractor that the area is totally clear of underground pipework. If work starts and there is something underground that becomes ruptured or severed (water or electric) then there could be a share of negligence. The Contractor would point to the fact that the Consultant should have checked the situation for himself before proceeding, whereas the Consultant would say that he only bored where specifically instructed with confirmation that the area was clear. It is likely that in these circumstances the liability would be shared equally by the two parties.

2. Levels of care and skill.

This is not always very clear from an insurance point of view and it can become a legal issue.

English law is founded on the principle of “reasonableness”, which basically says that all matters are decided based on whether those involved had acted in a manner which was considered, in their particular circumstances, to be that expected by an ordinary person – once defined as “the man on the Clapham Omnibus”.

It is rare for an insurance policy to make any specific reference to levels of care and skill but there would be an assumption that both would be adequate for the task being undertaken. Insurance policies are written on the basis of “utmost good faith” which means that the Insured has told the Underwriter everything that is relevant to the cover being sought. Obviously the Underwriter is also free to ask any suitable questions on the matter as he thinks fit.

One area where skill levels do specifically come in for consideration is in respect of Health and Safety. Under the Health and Safety at Work Act there is a stipulation that all businesses should have access to a “competent person”. This term is not defined within the Act but the Health and Safety Executive have indicated that it means a person who has sufficient training and sufficient knowledge to be able to undertake the task.

A similar situation applies in respect of Statutory Inspections of plan and equipment where it is stipulated that such inspections must be undertaken by a “competent person”.

Article Business Practice Data Management Executive

Electronic Tenders – The Future?

- by
Tags: AGS Business Practice WG electronic information Geotechnical internet procurement

A survey of Members in January/February 2003 revealed that a majority have some experience of tendering based on information provided electronically.   Responses were received from approximately one third of the AGS Member Firms.  Of these 20% had tendered for a contract over the internet; 38% had bought (construction related) products and services over the internet; 5% had sold products and services on the web; and 74% had tenders on information provided in an electronic format.

E-Procurement Survey of AGS Members experience

Tendering on the WWW (electronic auctions)                       20%

Buying products and services on WWW                                  38%

Selling products and services on WWW                                  5 %

Tendering based on electronic information                            74%

Of those that had tendered using electronic information 68% had experienced difficulties typical of e-tendering:  poor indexing; irrelevant information (ie information overload); and data that couldn’t be manipulated.  Leaving 76% of those with experience with the overall impression that electronic data did not save time.

This is particularly important when it comes to ground investigation data in AGS format which is intended to deliver efficiencies in both time and cost by eliminating the need to re-key information.  To achieve these efficiencies, data providers must address the need to supply data in a manipulable format (perhaps in addition to a *.pdf file) and to make routine use of the AGS Format logo (supplied to all registered users of Edition 3) to alert the data user that electronic data is available.

How can IT help the tender process?

Saving time?

Theoretically, yes.

  • Information can be efficiently shared internally and with bid partners
  • re-keying of data can be avoided
  • re-drafting (eg existing survey information sections, etc) can be avoided

Save printing costs?

Not really.  Cost is just passed down the chain to the user.

Reduce the tender period?

Not really.  Design development, commercial assessment, technical considerations and health and safety risk assessments are still necessary, and these are undertaken by people.

Summary

AGS Members appear to be increasingly comfortable with web technology and with conducting business transactions on the www.  However they are cautious about bidding for complex projects through electronic auctions, although this might be a suitable route for small, straightforward contracts, using standard terms and conditions. Certainly, Clients are showing increasing enthusiasm for this method of procurement and believe that it brings price savings.  Many people, however, recognise that it is contrary to the industry agenda for best value and partnering – and ultimately that quality might be affected.

Tendering based upon electronic information is widespread; but many of the intended benefits are lost because data is poorly indexed and insufficient thought has been given to the format in which it is made available. SI data, in particular, needs to be in AGS Format and transmitted in a way that the recipient can use it without re-keying.

The AGS Business Practice WG, in co-operation with other interested bodies, is working to improve this situation and is preparing a standard information protocol for geotechnical contracts to assist those preparing enquiry documents.

The AGS would like to thank those Members who took part in the e-procurement survey and contributed valuable information about the use and usefulness of this method of procurement.

Article Safety

A Safe Pair of Hands

- by
Tags: BDA geotechnical industry Health & Safety at Work Regulations

Responsibility, Safety and Operative Competence in the Geotechnical Industry

Brian Stringer, British Drilling Association National Secretary

Did you know that everyone in the geotechnical industry, whether director, manager, engineer or drill crew needs to have a recognised safety card after December this year? If they haven’t got one, the Major Contractors Group (MCG), comprising some 24 of the UK’s leading construction companies, will not let them visit or work on their sites. That’s the message from the MCG, and there’s a stampede at present to register for one of the few recognised cards, that of the Construction Skills Certification Scheme (CSCS). Up to April 2004, the CSCS card for professionals is available under ‘grandfather rights’ after passing a touch screen health & safety test (held at driving test centres), but after that time it will be necessary to have a National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) at Level 4.

It’s a stark message that the MCG is putting out. Tolerance will no longer be exercised towards individuals and companies who cannot provide independent proof of their safety competence. The MCG is not alone, for their policy is supported either directly or indirectly by legislation, Health & Safety Executive (HSE), Construction Industry Training Board (CITB), unions and trade associations. Included in the latter is the British Drilling Association (BDA) who recognised the national trends some years ago and now has a target date for 1st January 2005 for a fully qualified drilling workforce. On this date a new Minimum Competence Standard will replace the Association’s current Driller Accreditation Scheme and will apply to all drilling operatives irrespective of drilling application. This Standard will require possession of a CSCS drilling card, NVQ Land Drilling qualification at level 2 and regular on-site auditing by the BDA.

The BDA is mirroring, anticipating and extending what it believes are rapidly becoming the requirements in the construction industry. The national background is the drive towards proof of a workforce’s safety and skill. A BDA presentation entitled “A Safe Pair of Hands” sets out in detail the background, trends and proposed action to provide that proof. The BDA is taking this presentation on the road over the forthcoming months into the offices of clients, agencies, designers and consulting engineers to both inform and seek co-operation within the geotechnical community of which it is part.

“A Safe Pair of Hands” does not confine itself to talking about those at the sharp end, but includes all those involved in geotechnical work co-operating together to provide safe, compliant and quality work. All have to be aware of and subject to the law particularly on health & safety matters. The HSE, in enforcing the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974, Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994 (CDM) and Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations 1999, is now placing more emphasis on the Clients’ and designers’ responsibilities and looking for a full audit trail. In particular, CDM regulations require firms to maintain and employ skilled workforces that are aware of health and safety requirements. Responsibility to be safe starts at the top, as is witnessed by the increasing pressure on directors to appoint and oversee safety measures and systems.

There are two elements arising from this, namely skill on the one hand and health & safety on the other that now have to be proven prior to employment on site. And that proof is no longer the product of self-certification, or mere attendance at training courses. The proof has to be provided by independent assessment and testing, and be of ‘recent’ origin not years out of date. Within construction trades there has existed a multitude of registration, qualification and training schemes for skill and safety, some of doubtful and dubious nature. The widescale availability of NVQs, created by the government, and their development for the specialist trades has provided a common base for specification and understanding. The BDA, together with the CITB, has created an NVQ Land Drilling which, through its differing assessment routes, provides a qualification for all members of a drill crew and the majority of drilling applications.

The NVQ Land Drilling assessment process is a lengthier and more involved process than the BDA’s current Accreditation Scheme that will cease at the end of 2004. The NVQ also has the benefit of being partially government funded, and more nationally recognisable across trades and by clients.

The first part of the BDA’s new Minimum Competence Standard, that of being a CSCS Land Drilling cardholder is inexorably linked to the NVQ requirement. To obtain the CSCS card a drilling operative has to register to take an NVQ and obtain it within 3 years. The person must also successfully complete a touchscreen health & safety test. Therefore the possession of CSCS and NVQ combines safety with skill and the necessary proof as required by the law. But one further step has also been introduced by the BDA, a feature of its current Driller Accreditation Scheme.

Qualification such as a GCSE, degree or NVQ, is for life and provides decreasing proof of a person’s current knowledge and skill as time goes by. The accent today is that of continuous professional development (CPD) and quality assurance. The first calls for ongoing dusting off and lifting of skills while the second addresses current conformance to standards. A central principle has always existed in the BDA’s Accreditation Scheme, since its inception in 1991, that drillers should be regularly inspected via an on-site audit. The auditing process, carried out by the BDA’s own assessors (auditors), includes looking at the person, rig & equipment and is to continue within the new minimum competence standard making up the third part of the standard. The process is being strengthened and will run on quality assurance lines to ensure that non-conformances are closed out.

As from 1st January 2005 all drilling operatives should conform to the new Minimum Competence Standard of CSCS / NVQ2 / BDA Audited. This standard combines the 3 essential elements of a nationally recognised safety card (CSCS); national skill qualification (NVQ), and is industry verified & audited regularly (BDA). It will be the proof required by clients and their agents that the workforce is skilled and safety aware. The industry cannot achieve acceptance of this standard without the co-operation of those who specify drilling works and monitor the credentials of the labour employed. With this in mind, the BDA is proactively engaged, through the “Safe Pair of Hands” presentation, in spreading the message and seeking co-operation. The BDA invites contact from all interested parties either to comment or obtain further information.

British Drilling Association Wayside London End Upper Boddington Daventry Northamptonshire NN11 6DP

Tel: 01327 264622 Fax: 01327 264623 Email: info@britishdrillingassociation.co.uk Web: www.britishdrillingassociation.co.uk

Article Contaminated Land Laboratories

ICRCL 59/83 – Beyond 20 December 2002

- by
Tags: Contaminated Land DEFRA Geoenvironmental toxicological data

R G Clark, CL Associates

Most AGS members are aware or should be aware that ICRCL Guidance Note 59/83, 2nd edition was withdrawn by DEFRA in a letter from Steven Griffiths of the Contaminated Land Branch on 20 December 2002. The letter referred to the fact that the CLEA package (published by DEFRA and the Environment Agency), consisting of Contaminated Land Reports (CLRs) 7 to 10, the CLEA 2002 software, certain toxicological reports (TOX) and certain Soil Guideline Values (SGVs) is considered by DEFRA to represent the key instrument for generic assessment of the human health risks from contaminated land.

The reasoning put forward for the withdrawal of ICRCL 59/83 was that the guideline values are out of date and that they are not in line with the current statutory regime (Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990) and associated policy.

Up until that time many practitioners had relied heavily on the use of the ICRCL 59/83 guideline values for assessing human health risks associated with contaminated land. Others had already started to use alternative risk based methodologies such as RBCA, R&D P20, SNIFFER and of course CLEA. In many instances ICRCL or Dutch guideline values were used as a first screening before progressing to a quantitative risk assessment (QRA) for those contaminants of particular concern that were above the guideline values for a particular site.

The letter dated 20 December 2002 was immediately followed by a Briefing Note, also dated December 2002, from the Contaminated Land Branch of DEFRA. This briefing note emphasised that ICRCL 59/83, and especially Tables 3 and 4, should no longer be used. It can be noted that other ICRCL guidance has not been withdrawn. The DEFRA Briefing Note recognises the continued use of these other ICRCL guidance documents provided that they are not used as the sole source of information on which decisions are based.

A number of Local Authorities have now adopted the position that for the assessment of contaminated land, only UK based guidance is applicable. They will, therefore, no longer accept both ICRCL 59/83 and the Dutch Guidelines. In effect this means that where no published SGV exists then it is necessary to carry out a site specific QRA for each contaminant even before an initial screening can be undertaken. This constitutes a potential problem where there is also no TOX Report available, in that each organisation that carries out such risk assessments has to source appropriate and verifiable toxicological data.

An update of the existing CLEA Model was published in March 2003. A new version of the CLEA Model (open architecture version) is anticipated which is a spreadsheet version that allows more user-functionality.

SGVs have been published for Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Mercury, Nickel and Selenium. TOX Reports are available for Benzo (a) pyrene, Benzene, Inorganic Cyanide, Dioxins, Furans and Dioxin like PCBs but no SGVs. The Environment Agency have stated that they will be issuing additional SGVs in batches of 5 or 6 at quarterly intervals over the next 2 years.

But what is to happen in the interim ? – chaos according to some. At various conference and technical committee venues both consultants and Local Authorities have expressed their concerns over the rapid withdrawal of ICRCL 59/83 without a sufficiently comprehensive UK alternative being available.

In conclusion, AGS members should be aware of their responsibilities to their clients. If a geoenvironmental specialist were to continue to use ICRCL 59/83 in reports that they prepare for a client and those reports are subsequently submitted for approval to a regulator (such as part of a Planning Application) or to some other body such as a funding organisation and are rejected due to the use of ICRCL, it may very well be considered that the specialist has failed in its duties to the client because it has used reference material that has been officially withdrawn.

Equally there is a risk that the use of Dutch guidelines could be rejected. This will depend on the approach of the particular regulator. The alternative, apart from using the CLEA Model, is to use SNIFFER etc (see above). However, for all of these methods it is necessary to research toxicological data and to be able to verify these data within a UK context. Site specific criteria are therefore being based on a variety of sources of toxicological data of varying quality. How are those, such as regulators, who have the task of approving these derived values going to make judgements on the reliability and applicability of the toxicological data ?

There is no easy answer at present.

Article Contaminated Land Loss Prevention

EU ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITY DIRECTIVE

- by
Tags: biodiversity Commission and European Parliament DEFRA insurance water and soil

This new Directive is progressing through the Commission and European Parliament and has been reviewed by the Parliamentary Legal Affairs and Monetary and Insurance Committees, although not yet by the Environment Committee. In the UK , theEA and DEFRA have commented on the draft published earlier in the year.

The draft referrs to three types of damage: biodiversity, water and soil. The first two refer to other Directives; soil damage refers only to harm to human health and the risk of serious adverse effect. Two types of responsibility are covered: Strict liability according to other Directives (eg IPPC, Waste, Water Framework, Air Pollution, etc.); and fault based for other occupational activities, but only relating to biodiversity.

Exemptions and exclusions include operations in accordance with permits issued under one of the Directives; a state of knowledge exclusion; defence/military; and activities covered by other conventions (eg transport of oil by sea).

Standards of restoration for biodiversity and water are back to baseline; but for soil to the point where it doesn’t represent significant harm. It introduces the idea of interim losses and compensatory actions (eg to provide alternative resources or compensation for the loss of amenity for the same length of time that the amenity is unavailable). There are ongoing discussions about insurance issues.

It will not be retrospective and is not expected to be introduced before 2005.

A DEFRA extended regulatory impact assessment can be found on the DEFRA website.