Article Contaminated Land Laboratories

ISO/TC190 Meeting, Paris Note prepared by Peter Rodd

- by
Tags: analysis chemical and ecotoxicological Geoenvironmental Geotechnical soil quality

For the fourth year running I attended the ISO/TC190 Soil Quality meeting, this year in Paris. The meeting comprises sessions of the various Sub Committees and their working groups plus plenary sessions for the Sub Committees, and the TC190 and CEN TC345 (both Soil Quality) meetings. I attended 7 sessions.

As previously, I was representing the BSI committee EH/4 (Soil Quality) on which I serve, in turn, representing the AGS.

As with last year’s meeting in Brno, the Czech Republic, much of the general discussion concerned the Horizontal Project originally instituted by CEN. The purpose of this project is to harmonize standards across matrices.. Once a Horizontal Standard has been created and endorsed by CEN it becomes a European Standard and supersedes equivalent National Standards and International Standards within the EC. If it is also accepted by ISO the new standard supersedes the equivalent ISO Standard in the rest of the world; if not accepted by ISO it runs side by side with the ISO as a European Standard. It is now ISO TC190’s first function to respond to CEN requests to develop new standards while continuing to develop standards that have international support. Everything clear so far?

Although the function of EH/4, ISO TC190 and CEN TC345 is Soil Quality from the soil science perspective, there are clearly overlaps with geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering, particularly in light of the Horizontal Project, and this is the reason why the AGS agreed to have representation on the EH/4 committee. Topics of particular relevance are the chemical test methods being developed that will be used for compliance issues arising from the sludge directive.

The function of EH/4 is to assist in the development and review of International and European standards, and to put forward comments received initially from the EH/4 sub committees on early committee drafts (CD), and at a later stage comments from interested parties more generally on draft international standards (DIS). The latter stage is where AGS members get the chance to make comments (which can be funnelled through me) to EH/4 and thence to the ISO TC190 working groups. The annual meeting is the usual forum for discussion of such comments. Following DIS stage the document becomes a final draft (FDIS) at which stage comments are largely restricted to editorial issues. The member countries then vote to determine whether the document should become an International Standard. If BSi give a positive vote and the document is passed as an International Standard it automatically becomes a British Standard. If a member country votes ‘No’ then they do not adopt the ISO standard, even if passed, as their National standard.

The sessions I attended were: ” CEN 345 – Characterisation of soils; ” ISO/TC 190 Plenary – Soil Quality; ” SC7 WG4 – Human Exposure; ” SC7 WG6 – Leaching; ” SC7 WG7 – Background Levels; ” SC7 Plenary – Soil and Site Assessment; and ” SC3 Plenary – Chemical Methods.

The CEN meeting concentrated on various existing standards and whether they were suitable as Horizontal Standards. Previously questionnaires had been sent to member countries to get their views but only brief responses were forthcoming. One standard of particular relevance to the AGS is ISO 11277 ‘determination of particle size distribution in mineral soil material – method by sieving and sedimentation’. It was felt by the delegates that this test method is time consuming and is not generally used, therefore, it will not be recommended as a Horizontal standard but will remain as an ISO and should be used as a reference method. Other test methods discussed were: ISO 10381-3 on safety, ISO 10381-4 Guidance on the procedure for investigation of natural, near-natural and cultivated sites, ISO 10694 organic and total carbon after dry combustion (elementary analysis), ISO 11261 Total Nitrogen, ISO 11263 Phosphorus spectrometric soluble in sodium hydrogen carbonate, ISO 14255 Nitrate, ammonium and total soluble nitrogen using calcium chloride, and ISO FDIS 16772 mercury in aqua regia. It was felt that none of the standards could be recommended to Horizontal without review and that ISO 10381.4 was to general and would conflict with national standards, and ISO 11263 was not used and should also not be recommended.

Registration of new work items for CEN and their terms of reference will be controlled by BT TF151, a task force set up for that purpose and to receive the Horizontal draft CEN standards. They will also co-ordinate the CEN response to these standards.

One item of interest from the ISO TC190 plenary meeting was that methods for the analysis of asbestos were considered to be outside the scope of soil quality and that TC146 will develop methods although TC190 will be involved in the handling and sampling aspects.

The SC7/WG4 session considered to documents; ISO 15800 on the characterisation of soils with respect to human exposure that was reported as having been issued as a full standard, and CD 17924 on the bioavailability of metals in contaminated soils – physiological based extraction method which will be amended in light of the discussions and comments received and issued as a DIS in June 2005. The stated aim of this document is to establish a list of parameters and is aimed at risk assessors.

I attended the second session of SC7/WG6 and discussion focused on CD 19492 ‘Leaching procedures for subsequent chemical and ecotoxicological testing of soils and soil materials – influence of pH on leaching with initial acid/base addition’. The procedure is considered to be generic. An annex will be added to explain the use of the various pH levels and extraction solutes. Validation of the method is required but funding will be required and so the document, initially, will be a technical specification. The delegates did not agree with the UK’s definition of ‘leaching’ but in any case it is defined in the document. It was considered that the agitation levels given in the document are likely to break most glassware, guidance was requested from the delegate countries. A guidance document was also discussed but this was at a very early stage of development.

SC7/WG7 discussed DIS 19258 ‘Guidance on the establishment of background values’ which was issued late due to a problem with obtaining the French translation. The DIS was approved prior to the meeting with only the UK disapproving. Although such a guidance document would be useful the EH4 committee considered that there is too much confusion in the document particularly with the terms that are used. In particular the term ‘usual background’ was considered to be somewhat imprecise and the main definitions will be re-written. Another problem with the document is that if it becomes a standard and the UK approve it, there may well be a conflict with BS 10175 which would probably have to be withdrawn.

On that alarming note I shall end my report. The next meeting will be in Japan in October.

Article Laboratories

“The Geology of Site Investigation Boreholes from Hong Kong”

- by
Tags: boreholes engineers geological rock and soil

AGS (Hong Kong) have announced the publication of the above title. The author is Chris Fletcher but in an effort to promote the development of good practice in the industry AGS(HK) has played a significant role in the publication.

Described by the author as a ‘Practical Guide for Geologists and Engineers’, the book Is the first of its kind in concentrating on illustrations and geological interpretations of samples of rock and soil obtained from boreholes throughout Hong Kong. All the main groups of rocks and many of the individual rock types present in Hong Kong are covered in terms of composition, distribution, geological setting and site examples. Hydrothermal alteration, deformation and weathering are also addressed, and there are sections on superficial deposits and karst.

A review by Diamad Campbell (GEO) concludes: The range of lithologies and materials addressed is extensive, and the illustrations in particular comprise a very valuable resource for geologists and engineers working in Hong Kong. Although practitioners using the book should bear in mind that it presents the author’s personal view of interpretation of samples obtained in site investigation boreholes, the book is recommended to anyone interested in the geology of Hong Kong.

For copies: AGS(HK), c/o Benaim (China) Ltd, 25/F SUP Tower, 75-83 Kings Road, North Point, Hong Kong. (Payment by bankers order only made payable to AGS(HK) – HK$200 inc. p+p)

Article Contaminated Land Laboratories

Reinforced soil design code to be revised

- by
Tags: Geo-environmental Geosynthetics Geotechnical Ground Engineering Reinforced soils

When BS 8006, the code of practice for Strengthened / Reinforced soils and other fills, was first published in 1995, it was acclaimed as an international benchmark in the field. Nearly ten years on, the Standard remains the most comprehensive National Standard on reinforced soil, and is adopted as practice in many other countries. In keeping with BSI policy, the Standard BS8006 is presently undergoing its 10 year review and it is expected that new developments in the field and the development of new European standards, will be included in the revised Standard thus ensuring it remains at the forefront of good practice.

In December 2003, British Standards Institution gave the go ahead to revise the document and BSI Technical Committee B 526/4 met to start the process in April 2004. Representatives are drawn from industry, trade associations and learned bodies (Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE), International Geosynthetics Society, Association of Geotechnical and Geo-environmental Specialists (AGS), Institution of Highways and Transportation (IHT), Association for Consultancy & Engineering (ACE), Department for Transport, Highways Agency (DfT), British Apparel & Textile Confederation (BATC)) to provide a mix of experience from the original drafting committee combined with input from some new members, all chaired by Steve Corbett of Faber Maunsell.

Several task groups have now been formed to review all of the main sections of the documents including the design of reinforced slopes, walls, embankments and soil nailing. Comments, suggestions, and proposals for improvements are invited from users of the document and other interested parties, either via their trade association or directly to the BSI secretary Sina Talal. It is hoped to provide regular updates on progress within Ground Engineering, as work proceeds. In the meantime, BS8006 should continue to be used until the new revision of the document is available, anticipated for 2006.

Please forward any comments or suggestions to committee secretary Sina Talal at SINA.TALAL@BSI-GLOBAL.COM.

Article Business Practice Data Management

Bothered by unwanted telemarketing calls?

- by
Tags: marketing Telephone Preference Society

Under Government legislation introduced on 1st May 1999 and replaced on 11th December 2003 by the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003, it is unlawful to make unsolicited direct marketing calls to individuals who have indicated that they do not want to receive such calls.

For some time, individuals have been able to do this by registering with the Telephone Preference Society. (Registering a mobile number will prevent voice calls but not text messages). The service works well and calls drop to almost nothing within a month or so.

The good news is that since June 2004, companies have also been able to register their wish not to receive unsolicited sales calls. It prevents most calls – and there is a certain satisfaction in being able to inform offenders that what they are doing is illegal. The click of a receiver being replaced is generally the last you will hear from them. Fax spam can also be prevented by registering with Fax Preference Society.

Telephone: www.tpsonline.org.uk
Fax: www.fpsonline.org.uk

Article Business Practice Contaminated Land Executive Loss Prevention

Report of AGS Chairman’s visit to ASFE Conference

- by
Tags: ASFE brownfield sites committee Geo-environmental

At the invitation of the President of ASFE, I attended the ASFE Autumn Conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. The conference was held over two days (Friday and Saturday) with Board committee meetings held on Thursday and Sunday. The whole event was very well organised, extremely sociable, informative and thought provoking. I gave a presentation to the Conference of the current initiatives and concerns of the AGS which was well received.

Perhaps most surprising to me was just how many of the issues of concern to ASFE were common to the AGS. In particular this was illustrated by concerns over the trend in the Client community to expect “perfection” from their geotechnical/ geo-environmental advisors. Such Clients then appear hold reasonable (?!) expectations of recovering any financial over-runs from their advisors even if such costs have not resulted from any negligence by that advisor. ASFE have just published a Handbook ‘Limitation of Liability’ which although specifically related to the US experience, also provides much useful information for the UK practitioner. A copy has been given to the AGS Loss Prevention Group who will be looking to see how best to utilise this tool in the UK market. [You can see the ASFE publication list and order copies on www.asfe.org].

Interestingly, and contrary to what I had anticipated, the levels of liability agreed by parties in the US are far lower than those currently being accepted here in the UK. For example, many ASFE members are able to limit their liability to the level of fee or to levels as low as $50,000.

Training is also an issue which is concerning the industry on both sides of the Atlantic. The availability, consistency and quality of training for members and employees is recognised as being critical in ensuring the continuing professional development of the industry. To its credit ASFE has over 50 training presentations (‘brown bag talks’) on its web site for use by its members. I believe that the AGS now needs to give further consideration to its role in the provision of training to the industry.

Geo-environmental aspects are assuming an increasing importance for both ASFE and AGS members. In the US geo-environmental work is now more important than geotechnical for the majority of ASFE members. This is reflected in moves in the US to create an “Institute of Brownfield Professionals”. This proposal essentially mirrors the SiLC [Specialists in Land Contamination] registration scheme which has been set up in the UK with the active support / participation of the AGS. Also of current concern to ASFE have been recent developments at the Environmental Participation Agency and the specification of a Standard – which defines the amount of site investigation needed on Brownfield sites. The Standard refers to only a simple option [the ASTM – All Appropriate Inquiry (AAI)]. ASFE has concerns that this signals movement at the EPA from their previous position of preferring ‘performance based standards’ to one of the ‘prescriptive standards’. Again, this has parallels in the UK and it will be important for the AGS to monitor the implementation of the Model Procedures for the Management of Contaminated Land (CLR11) by the various regulators, to ensure that this document does provide a framework for assessment and not a straight jacket.

One element of the conference that did surprise me was the very open/honest atmosphere that ASFE has created over the years. This was exemplified by the presentation of several ‘Case Histories’. These presentations by ASFE members describe in unambiguous words of few syllables how and why things went wrong on their projects which led to liabilities and costs against them. The topics covered ranged from; foundation/pavement design, a de minimus site investigation and to a case of unfair dismissal [in this instance a claim for $25 million by the employee who had been employed for less than 1 year!]. In each case the lessons learned by the member company were clearly spelt out for the benefit of all. The question and answer sessions were particularly illuminating.

In the UK we are perhaps less prepared to wash our dirty linen in public. However, these sessions were so powerful and reinforced the written advice that both ASFE and AGS are giving to members that I believe we would do well to adopt this practice to our own Members Day. Watch this space!

This is now the third time that the AGS Chairman has attended the ASFE conference and the potential benefits are beginning to be realised. There is much more still to be gained by developing this liaison further over the coming years and I am pleased to be able to report that Dan Harpstead, the new ASFE President, was a guest speaker at this year’s AGS Members’ Day.

Hugh Mallett

Article Safety

Letters to the Editor

- by
Tags: archaeological risks archaeology industrial safety

Integrating archaeology into geotechnical surveys

Dear Colleague

Unexpected archaeological discoveries can cause costly construction delays. There are number of things which AGS members can do to reduce archaeological risks and help better preserve our heritage as well.

One of the simplest is recording archaeology, as well as geotechnical details, from boreholes and test-pits. The added cost can be minimal but the information gained can forewarn of potential problems and help further archaeological studies, later in the development, to flow more smoothly. The whole project can benefit – and the client’s costs can be reduced.

Terra Nova Limited has carried out a study of ways in which archaeological recording could be better integrated into geotechnical site investigations.

You can find the report on our website at www.terranova.ltd.uk

We need your comments to find out if the idea of closer integration could ever be widely accepted – and how this might be achieved.

If you already build archaeology into you site investigations or coordinate geotechnical and archaeological studies from the start we would like to hear about your experiences.

If you haven’t integrated work in this way what would be your main concerns? What might persuade you to do so?

We have tried to angle the study towards the practicing geotechnical engineer but it is also intended for archaeologists, since the push for integration would have to come from both sides if it were to succeed.

Thanks for your help

David Jordan
Director, Terra Nova Ltd

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

Unexploded Ordnance

Dear Sir

We are becoming increasingly concerned about the activities of some of the companies that offer threat assessments in respect of the risk of encountering unexploded ordnance on a site, (either during ground investigations or piling and excavation / construction etc). Usually the ordnance that might be present relates to unexploded wartime bombs (UXB). We are writing to see if any other member organisations have similar concerns.

We have commissioned a number of these desk studies / threat / risk assessments, with the results that basically if the site is anywhere near what was a built up area in the south of England during WW2, or an industrial area, port or military installation anywhere in the UK, then the results always seem to conclude that there is a risk (not really quantified) of UXBs being present and then go on to recommend / suggest expensive precautionary measures during investigation and development. This includes probing / magnetometer surveys etc in advance of each borehole, and it can double or treble the cost of the GI. The same measures would need to be put in place before piling also.

However, in most cases it is the very companies that offer the expertise to do the threat assessments that also carry out the ordnance clearance works that are needed. There is a potential conflict of interest here. Also, we have been unable to obtain quantitative assessments of risk (other than low / medium / high) from the companies concerned, so we cannot give objective advice on the actual degree of risk to our clients. This service sector appears to have a problem in quantifying the risks involved and we as an industry should be concerned about the consequences.

To put the risk in context we have had a brief canvass of colleagues in the industry and this suggests that there is only one recorded incident of an UXB being detonated by ground investigation or foundation construction activity and that was by a piling rig in Berlin, which must have been bombed much more heavily (and with larger bombs) than the UK.

We accept that there is an enhanced risk in heavily bombed areas such as the Thames Estuary / London Docklands, other docks and near major military sites etc, but not generally in many parts of post WW2 London and the south-east or in industrial areas away from docks further north. We believe that for many sites the cost of the special precautions recommended by the firms involved is not justified by the actual risk, but it is very difficult to ignore recommendations or suggestions in reports by these specialists once you have commissioned them. Equally as responsible Engineers, it is difficult to justify not commissioning the threat assessment in the first place for many parts of the UK.

Several of our major developer clients have also expressed concern at over-zealous safety requirements arising from such assessments and their feedback is that some of our consultant competitors do not appear to address UXB risk at all. Of course, as a practice we take an extremely responsible attitude to safety, which is of paramount importance, and it is essential that we respond to risks if they are genuinely present. However, we have no desire to be perceived by our clients as over-cautious in this particular respect, with a more expensive outcome for the developer.

We fear that this is going to become an even greater problem in the future as we all become more safety conscious and risk averse.

Perhaps the answer is for practitioners such as ourselves to develop their own independent expertise in carrying out such threat assessments on a quantitative numerical basis, so we do not have to rely on those that also carry out the clearance work. Then we would be able to give our clients objective advice on risk.

Are there other members’ concerns about this? Is this something AGS should be looking at, perhaps with FPS if there are similar concerns? Is there experience elsewhere in Europe to draw on? We would be pleased to hear the views of the Association.

Richard Thomas
Senior Associate
Peter Brett Associates.

Editors Note: Do you have a view on this issue – or anything else in the Newsletter? Feedback (whether or not for publication) is always welcome at the AGS office

Article Laboratories

MCERTS implementation still set for 1 March 2005

- by
Tags: analytical laboratory MCERT

In view of the fact that many companies will find that no laboratory has MCERT accreditation for all the tests they require, the EA has been asked for clarification and guidance about what interim measures may be applied.

The response indicates that moving implementation deadlines has not proved productive in increasing the number of MCERTS laboratories, and may in fact be counter productive, as some labs may believe the scheme will never be fully implemented and enforced. Therefore, the scheme will be fully implemented from 1st March.

The EA concede however, that some pragmatism may be required in the short term. In general, procurers of analytical services will be expected to choose the laboratory that best meets their requirements, i.e. the one that can carry out the highest percentage of the required Annex A parameters to MCERTS standard. In order for this to be accepted, evidence may be required in order to demonstrate that steps were taken to find the most appropriate laboratory.

Article Data Management

AGS 3.1 publication now available for download

- by
Tags: data format

The AGS Data Format committee wishes to announce the publication of Revision 1 to the third edition of the AGS Data transfer format.

The AGS Data Format subcommittee has monitored the use of the format within the industry since the launch of AGS 3 in 1999. The committee considers that it is now appropriate to issue AGS 3.1 to include the developments which have occurred over the last few years. In accordance with section 9 of the AGS 3 publication the majority of this document includes format additions requested by the industry.

There are no major changes from AGS 3 and therefore the committee have decided to call this Revision 1 of the AGS 3 format (AGS 3.1) rather than AGS 4. The changes in this revision are new fields, groups and pick list items all sitting within the AGS 3 framework.

AGS 3.1 is compliant with the rules in AGS 3 and therefore the ? remains in all new headings and groups even though these are now in common use.

This revision brings together AGS 3, the “The AGS-M Format – for the electronic transfer of monitoring data ” published by AGS and CIRIA in 2002 and other groups and headings, which have been suggested on the AGS website and used by the industry.

A complete list of all additions, revisions and their history is available on the AGS web pages (http://www.ags.org.uk) The AGS data format website has been updated to display all the additions in this document together will the appropriate guidance notes. The website also allows the visitor to view the field version history and an appropriate discussion threads that have contributed to the changes

It is expected that all registered users will be able to use these additional headings for projects starting after March 2005 but this is solely up to the relevant project members to agree.

Article Loss Prevention

AGS PI Insurance Survey

- by
Tags: Geotechnical group insurance insurers questionnaire

In an endeavour to discover AGS Members’ experience with PI insurance and their claims history, the Loss Prevention WG asked all Members to complete a short questionnaire.

Who responded

The questionnaire was sent to all 125 AGS Members. 41 completed responses were received – 3 of which were from respondents that did not hold PI insurance. These were more or less representative of the Membership. Large companies, however, were slightly under represented (partly because those with group insurance, or in some cases world-wide policies, did not have access to the required data). Personal Members, who appear to have been particularly hard hit by recent increases in premiums, were somewhat over represented.

Figure 1: Respondents compared to AGS Membership

AGS
Membership
Membership Type Response % responding
Member Firm 20 78 26
Associate MF 5 17 30
Affiliate 2 11 18
Personal 9 19 47
Not known 2
Grand Total 38 125 30

Consultants were predominant among correspondents (34 of the 38 who gave information) but this was not surprising given the nature of the survey. Two-thirds of the consultants undertake both geotechnical and geoenvironmental work. 15 respondents were contractors, but only 4 of these were not also consultants. (It must also be remembered that ‘contractor’ in the AGS can mean those whose primary activity is carrying out site investigations, as well as those involved in remediation of contaminated land, the construction of foundations or other geotechnical work.) Only 5 laboratories supplied information – and all of these companies also engage in either consultancy or sampling activities.

In short (and unsurprisingly), the replies primarily reflect the experience of consultants engaged in both geotechnical and geoenvironmental work.

Limit of Insurance

Even 10 years ago, there was a trend towards ‘aggregate’ cover for geoenvironmental insurance. Reports suggested that this has increased in the interim so Respondents were asked whether their insurance limits were ‘aggregate’ or ‘each and every’. As can be seen from Figure 2 – the trend towards aggregate’ cover is still prevalent – but by no means universal. Geoenvironmental cover is twice as likely to be aggregate but a significant number of policies are still written on an ‘each and every’ basis.

Figure 2: Basis of insurance cover*

Aggregate ‘Each & Every’
Geotechnical cover 16 17
Geoenvironmental cover 23 11

(* 29 companies held both geotechnical and geoenvironmental cover – sometimes on an ‘each and every’ basis for geotechnical and ‘aggregate’ for geoenvironmental .)

Premium Increases

No respondent reported that they had ever been notified that their premium was being increased because of their claims record.

Respondents were asked to indicate the year on year increases in premiums, excesses and turnover for the past 3 years. During this period there were widespread reports of large premium increases, and the insurance industry came up with a number of reasons why this should be so. Insurance industry explanations included the need to cover large claims resulting from losses due to the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the collapse of Enron, the loss of investment income following the stock market collapse, and, as far as the construction industry was concerned, reduced competition following the collapse of the Independent insurance company. The table below indicates how little of the increases were due to increases in turnover. It also indicates that although the rate of increase may now have slowed, premiums have yet to stabilise.

Mean Premium Increases over the past 3 Years
(compared to increases in turnover)
Last year 2 years ago 3 years ago
Geotechnical Policies 31% 32% 36%
(12%) (17%) (16%)
Geoenvironmental Policies 23% 49% -2%
(2%) (2%) (2%)
Combined Policies 30% 73% 71%
(8%) (11%) (16%)
 Overall Mean 28% 51% 35%
(7%) (10%) (11%)

Excesses

Word of mouth over the past 3-4 years has indicated that excesses on many policies have risen even faster than premiums. The survey results showed however that only 45% of companies had experienced any change in their excess during the period. Of those that had, some reported increments of 20%-30% year on year – but most had experienced a single large increase of 100% to 500% (and one respondent reported a 1,000% increase!)

Exclusions

More than half of the respondents reported changes to the policy exclusions – mostly relating to asbestos but toxic mould and terrorism also figured prominently.

Claims 

One of the primary purposes of undertaking the survey was to look at the claims record of the sector. There are two ways that insurers might track risk in the sector – by looking at possible claims notified and by looking at actual claims. Predictably, the claims notified out numbered those paid.

It is clear that many potential problems never come to fruition or are resolved without financial loss. Received wisdom is that insurers are wary of potential geoenvironmental liabilities – but these figures indicate that only 30% of the claims notified in this sector are settled or paid (compared to 60% in the geotechnical sector).

It would have been good to end with some conclusions about the value of claims paid over the last 5 years but the small number of claims reported in the survey makes this impossible. Interestingly, however, the mean value of claims made In each sector is virtually identical.

Conclusions

There is growing evidence that external issues have increased premiums. There is some evidence that geoenvironmental issues are no more likely to result in pay outs than geotechnical issues.

Article Safety

A Low Cost Support Tool for Single Manning Site Safety

- by
Tags: landfill gas safety policies

All member companies will have had experience of controlling single manning site safety be it office administrators, or at the other extreme, walking sites monitoring for landfill gas. Whatever the task single manning cannot always be avoided and the answer to the problem is implementation of well developed safety policies.

In recent months the computer press has been highlighting the service offered by Mapminder.co.uk, which allows subscribers to track the location of active mobile phones to within 300 m. The facility, called ‘Mapaphone’, is currently being trialled by Marquis & Lord.

If employees fail to call in at pre determined times, to register there location as ‘off site’, the safety phone is called via a website and a map is displayed showing the location of the unit. The advantage is obvious, if the phone remains static for a period of time and additional calls to it are not answered then further investigation is triggered. As with all system there are weaknesses. The primary ones with this equipment are those of patchy network coverage, and human error, remembering to switch the phone on is of course essential. Battery failure can also present problems.

The service is not a panacea solution but it is a very powerful safety tool when used in conjunction with other procedures.

Further details can be found at: www.mapminder.co.uk

Tim White – Marquis & Lord, Consulting Scientists

Article Contaminated Land Laboratories

MCERTS

- by
Tags: Chemical test data chemical testing laboratories MCERTS soils

The Environment Agency have advised that a policy titled ‘Chemical Test Data on Contaminated Soils – Qualification Requirements (307_03)’ has recently been published. The purpose of the policy is to implement the ‘MCERTS Performance Standard for Laboratories Undertaking Chemical Testing of Soils’, which was published in March 2003.

Chemical test data on soils is used by the Agency to support its regulatory activities under a number of regimes, such as Part IIA of Environmental Protection Act 1990, Pollution, Prevention and Control (England and Wales Regulations) 2000 and Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994. The Performance Standard will be applicable to all laboratories and procurers of analytical services where results generated from the chemical testing of soil are presented to the Agency for regulatory purposes. After September 2004, the Agency expects that all soil testing results submitted will be from methods which have been accredited to BS EN ISO/IEC 17025:2000 for the MCERTS performance standard.

In the interim period, it is encouraged that all data provided to the Agency should be from a testing method accredited to BS EN ISO/IEC 17025:2000 and be accompanied by a brief method description, together with bias and precision estimates.

In addition to the policy, the Agency are producing a document for those who procure soil testing, for example consultants or local authorities, titled ‘Brief guide for procurers of analytical services’ which outlines what is expected of them and why it is required. All the documents mentioned above will be available from the Agency’s MCERTS website at www.mcerts.net.

Any technical queries relating to MCERTS should be addressed to Mike Healy, Technical Advisor, by email (Mike.Healy@environment-agency.gov.uk) and queries relating to the policy itself should be directed to Nicky Skidmore, Land Contamination Policy Advisor (Nicky, Skidmore@environment-agency.gov.uk).

Article Contaminated Land

The Landfill Directive – Nightmare or Opportunity

- by
Tags: brownfield sites Hazardous Waste Directive landfill pollution

[These notes were made after attending an EIC Seminar on the Landfill Directive held on 31 March 04. They represent the view of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the AGS.]

Summary

The European Landfill Directive (EC 2003/33) is due to be transposed into UK Law by 16 July 04, and be fully effective from 16 July 05. Transition arrangements for waste acceptance criteria will be in place from July 04 to July 05.

Legislative Background

The Landfill Directive sits with the Hazardous Waste Directive and the Waste Framework Directive.

The latter two have been in force for a number of years but will be effected by the Landfill Directive.

An updated European Waste Catalogue (EWC 2002) has now been published and this sets out which materials are (or potentially are) hazardous.

The EWC gives absolute and mirror entries. Absolute are classified as hazardous irrespective of their composition whereas mirror entries need to be checked for contaminants (both type and concentration).

The classification links back to CHIP3 regulations which are published by the HSE.

Waste sent to landfill will now be classified as hazardous or non-hazardous. The use of ‘inert’ seems no longer applicable.

Waste acceptance criteria (WAC) are shortly to be approved by the European Council and these will link into the Landfill Directive. The WAC require leaching tests to be carried out and limit a number of criteria which cannot be exceeded (eg TOC never above 6%). WAC is not due to be introduced until 2005 and interim criteria will be established to fill the gap.

The principle regulations

  • Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999

  • The Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002

  • The Landfill (Scotland) Regulations 2003

  • The Landfill (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2004

The Landfill Directive’s Rules

All hazardous waste sent to landfill must be pre-treated from July 04. No definition has been given as to what this means. However some reduction quantity and / or hazardous nature will have to be achieved.

Dilution (eg mixing of non-hazardous with hazardous) will be illegal from July 04.

Co-disposal is illegal from July 04 and sites will only be licensed to receive hazardous or non-hazardous. The most significant issue is that the number of sites licensed to receive hazardous waste will reduce from slightly less that 200 to about 10. Of these none re are located in Wales or the South East of England.

Waste

The latest definition of waste within the UK is that waste ‘shall mean any substance or object which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard’.

The hierarchy of waste treatment is re-use, reclaim, recover and recycle.

A waste remains as waste until complete recovery has taken place or the substance is put to its final use. It does not cease to be waste if someone intends to use it, if it has a value, if it is ready to recycle or if it is not polluting.

Environment Agency guidance indicates that all excavated contaminated land would be classified as waste.

It would appear that even excavated ‘clean’ soil on site may be classified as waste and thus and re-use would fall within the waste management licensing regulations.

What it all means

Despite the assembled hoard of experts at the Seminar, no-one really knew!

Confusion and uncertainty surround the issue, although something must happen in July to avoid serious Government embarrassment.

Some theories were:-

  • Landfill prices for hazardous waste are likely increase fourfold.

  • Haul distances will increase from an average today of 44 miles to 87 in 05.

  • Remediation by ‘dig and dump’ will become non viable in most situations

  • On-site remediation will to have increase dramatically but there is insufficient capacity in the UK to accommodate the probable demand

  • Many brownfield sites are likely to become non viable for development and consequently the Government objective of 60% development on Brownfield sites may be jeopardised.