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.

Article Business Practice Contaminated Land

Environment Agency Draft Policy on “Building on or Adjacent to Gassing Landfill Sites”

- by
Tags: brownfield sites EA experience of members landfills

This draft document was published as a draft for consultation in July 02. It sets out EA policy on how they should respond to consultations from planning authorities regarding sites on or adjacent to landfills. The major concern is the reliance on the trigger concentration of 1% for methane where housing development is proposed. The guidance highlights that this applies to sites with the potential to generate ‘significant quantities of gas’. Although the document is silent on a definition of ‘significant quantities’, recent thinking presented by the EA suggests a reservoir of gas in the ground not necessarily associated with active generation would be considered ‘significant quantities’.

AGS is concerned that this policy could prove very restrictive and could result in a significant number of brownfield sites not being developable.

AGS is keen to establish the experience of members as to whether this policy is creating obstacles to development in order to make a more strenuous approach to the EA. If anyone has any useful experiences (either one way or the other) please send details to; Peter Witherington (pjwitherin@ensr.co.uk)

Article Business Practice Data Management

IT & e-COMMERCE REPORT

- by
Tags: BPWG e-commerce e-procurement piling contractor

E-Procurement

Extranets, intranets, e-commerce, e-procurement – all words we see regularly in the civil engineering press and hear more frequently in the office and on site. This is perhaps not surprising when the Government is supporting many initiatives to encourage e-commerce and the introduction of broadband (high speed) internet connections into UK business (www.ukonlineforbusiness.gov.uk). Other initiatives relating specifically to construction such as the IT Construction Best Practice programme (www.itcbp.org.uk) and other collaborative initiatives like the Construction Industry Trading Electronically (www.cite.org.uk) project are serving to bring these issues further up the construction industry agenda. Indeed most of the Government Agencies and many large private clients have e-strategies of one form or another turning these initiatives in to practice.

Whilst the headlines tend to concentrate on e-commerce, the buying and selling of goods and services on the world-wide web, it is the process of tendering based upon information provided in an electronic form, usually on CD, that seems to be having the most direct and immediate impact on the construction industry and hence members of the AGS.

The Business Practice Working Group (BPWG), under the banner of IT and e-commerce, has started to investigate the extent and impact of these issues on ASG members and has begun by considering the e-procurement issues under three broad headings,

· Tendering for contracts (consultancy or construction) over the internet · Buying and selling products and services over the internet · Tendering for contracts based upon information provided electronically

A straw poll within the BPWG suggested that a number of contracts have been tendered over the internet by AGS members and a brief review of member’s websites shows that several AGS members are already offering products and services directly over the internet. Nearly all however had either tendered or prepared documentation for tender in an electronic form with varying degrees of success and satisfaction. In an attempt to better understand the experiences of AGS members with respect to e-procurement a brief questionnaire has prepared (enclosed with this newsletter) which we would be grateful if you or one of your colleagues could complete and return to the AGS by fax. The questionnaire will also available on the AGS website (www.ags.org.uk).

Electronic Tender Information – the easy option?

The wonders of modern technology mean that virtually all of us have computers either on our desks at work or at home. Potentially we can all save although most of us from time to time lament the constant bombardment with emails. But life can be easier when we receive information electronically especially if, like me, you can use the data provided without re-entering it. There is nothing more irritating than typing numbers in from a printed / paper copy of a spreadsheet when in the back of your mind you know someone else has done this before and they have it in an electronic format.

There can be a down side to receiving data electronically which stems from the proliferation of CD writers which now enables vast amounts of data to be readily stored and dispatched. On some CDs the data is well organised and specific to the end user, on others a mass of data which is mostly irrelevant is burnt onto a CD without thought. The box (xxxxxx) records the experience of a piling contractor dealing with two electronic enquiries

In this age of improved efficiency, great technology, the drive for cost reduction and increased environmental awareness surely a standard electronic format must be the way forward. The first example represents the easy “send it all” option and a step backwards. It was more time consuming than receiving a paper copy and no less wasteful in terms of paper, the only gain was lower postage. The second example represented a saving of time and resource, although there was clearly time and effort directed creation of the CD and menu system. The piling contractor concluded with the observation, ‘Surely a simple standard file directory system and data format would suit all; in this way we can all get to and use data effectively saving time, money and going some way to save the environment.’

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

On receiving tender invitations on CD The experience of a piling contractor

Piling Enquiry 1

The CD goes into the drive and nothing happens so the powers of Windows Explorer are invoked and a list of effectively anonymous folders fills the screen. There are no meaningful titles to guide me through the to the relevant data and most of the files are in “pdf” format including Word, Excel and drawing files, they must have “ghostscript pdf ” writer, and so the data is locked and has to be re-entered to use. It took several hours to go through and open the 269 files and 179 drawings (142MB of data). The information issued which included the Architectural and the Mechanical & Electrical drawings & specifications; as a Geotechnical engineer the fume cupboard drawings and specifications were particularly interesting.

Eventually the structural specification took centre stage on my computer screen and I thought I had at last come to the area of interest but no there followed another series of Electrical Controls drawings. Finally I did manage to get all the information I required (the structural drawings & specification, pile schedule and site investigation data – a total of 26MB of data). Needless to say, it was a big disappointment to find at this stage that the tender enquiry was only for 60 bored piles.

Unfortunately, probably like 4 or 5 other recipients of the tender enquiry, I had to print a large proportion of the data because I only have one computer and needed to re-enter data to carry out the necessary analysis. Another frustration was that the site investigation data was in “pdf” file format rather than the Association of Geotechnical Specialists’ “ags” format which can be ready analysed by a number of software packages. The “ags” data format seems to be rarely issued except on very large projects due to, I believe, the time it takes the site investigation contractors to issue it.

Piling Enquiry 2

The CD goes into the drive, auto-runs and you’re straight into a menu that enables you to navigate your way around the data. The relevant drawings, site investigation data, specifications, Bills of Quantity, etc can be opened up within minutes. It was disappointing but not surprising that the site investigation data had been scanned in “pdf” format.

Overall though the MACE electronic tender information was well above the rest, my thanks go to those at MACE even though they failed to see the merits of our tender submission.

 

Article Contaminated Land Laboratories

NEW BS ISO SOIL STANDARDS

- by
Tags: geotechnical requirements GUIDANCE ON SAMPLING TECHNIQUES safety soil contamination Soil materials

BS ISO 10381-2:2002

SOIL QUALITY – SAMPLING – Part 2

GUIDANCE ON SAMPLING TECHNIQUES

This standard, which is compatible with and complements BS 10175 Investigation of potentially Contaminated Site – Code of Practice, gives guidance on techniques for taking and storing samples so that these can subsequently be examined for the purpose of providing information on soil quality. It gives information on typical equipment that is applicable in particular sampling situations to enable correct sampling procedures to be > carried out and representative samples to be collected.

It is one of a series of International Standards dealing with sampling that have been, or will be issued as British Standards. The others are:-

ISO 10381-1 Guidance on the design of sampling programmes. (Being processed as BS).

ISO BS 10381-3 Guidance on safety – (Published as BS)

ISO FDIS 10381-4 Guidance on the procedure for the investigation of natural, near natural and cultivated sites. (In the final stages of approval as International Standard – will be implemented as BS)

ISO DIS 10381-5 Guidance on investigation of soil contamination of urban and industrial sites – in the process of being developed by ISO TC190 – the draft document will be circulated for further comment in 2003.

ISO 10381-6, BS 7755-2.6:1994 Guidance on the collection, handling and storage of soil for the assessment of aerobic microbial processes in soil.

ISO CD 10381-7 Guidance on the investigation and sampling of soil gas. (In the process of being developed by ISO TC190 – the draft document will be circulated for further comment in 2003).

ISO CD 10381-8 Guidance on the sampling of stockpiles. (In the process of being developed by ISO TC190 – the draft document will be circulated for further comment in 2003).

——————————————————-

BS ISO 15176:2002 Soil quality – characterization of excavated soil and other soil materials intended for re-use

This International Standard is one of a series providing guidance on the assessment of soils and soil materials in relation to certain functions and uses (others will relate, for example, to human health assessment and protection of groundwater). It provides guidance on the range of tests that may be necessary to characterise soil materials intended to be excavated and re-used with, or without, preliminary treatment. Soil materials include excavated soil, dredged materials, fill materials, manufactured soils and soil treated to remove or destroy contaminants. Assessment of soil material for re-use may require the measurement of the chemical, physical, biological, geotechnical and radiochemical characteristics of soil material and of the source and target sites. Treatment of soils and soil materials to remove or destroy contaminants or to reduce their availability to the environment may alter soil properties. These properties should therefore be determined before re-use. For manufactured soils, the characteristics of both the components and of the manufactured product may need to be determined.

The standard takes into account the different requirements of top-soil, sub-soil and other soil materials such as sediments or treated soils. International Standard analytical and other test methods (e.g. biological) that may be applicable are listed where available. The test methods are intended to cover a range of possible end uses including: – play areas for small children including nursery schools, kindergartens etc. – schools – gardens and other residential areas – allotments – horticulture – agriculture – forestry – recreational areas e.g. parks, sport fields – restoration of damaged ecosystems – Construction sites.

It is intended to be of use: – in determining the suitability of soil materials for re-use , and the – assessment of the environmental impacts that might arise from re-use.

The Standard does not cover the placement of soil materials in the water environment or to restore underground workings. It does not deal with geotechnical requirements when soil materials are to be used as construction material.

——————————————————-

BS ISO 15009:2002: Soil quality – Gas chromatographic determination of the content of volatile aromatic hydrocarbons, naphthalene and volatile halogenated hydrocarbons – Purge-and-trap method with thermal desorption

This new British/International Standard has just been published.

The method uses methanol as an extractant of the as-received field-moist sample. Those carrying out site investigations should note that:

· Exposure of samples to air, even during sampling, should be avoided as far as possible. Avoid the use of plastics, other than PTFE for handling and storage.

Samples should be analysed as soon as possible. Samples should be kept in the dark at 3C +/- 2C no longer than 4 days.

Information supplied by Michael A. Smith www.michael.a.smith.btinternet.co.uk

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

Article Contaminated Land Laboratories

THE EXTENSION OF MCERTS TO CHEMICAL TESTING OF SOILS

- by
Tags: analysis Contaminated Land Land Quality Policy Statement MCERTS

Bruno Guillaume, Arup Geotechnics

In October 2001, the Environment Agency launched proposals to extend its Monitoring Certification Scheme, MCERTS to the chemical testing of soils. The aim of the scheme is to deliver quality environmental measurements with product certification of instruments, the competency certification of personnel and the accreditation of laboratories based on an international standard. In its Land Quality Policy Statement (EAS/2703/1/6/Final 3, available on http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/commondata/105385/lqpol6re.pdf ), the Agency notes that it will only accept chemical testing data on contaminants in soils that has been produced by laboratories that have been accredited to the BS EN ISO/IEC 17025:2000 quality standard for the testing methods used.

The Agency has provided separate MCERTS performance standards in guidance available from www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/mcerts. To allow reasonable time for laboratories to complete validation of their testing methods to the Agency’s specification, the Agency will implement this policy over a period of twelve months from 1st April 2002. From the 31st March 2003*, the Agency will require that all chemical testing data on contaminants in soils, which is presented to it in support of regulatory compliance, must have an accompanying estimate of bias and precision and a description of the testing method used, with the laboratory being accredited to the BS EN ISO/IEC 17025:2000 standard for the test method.

The MCERTS proposals were discussed at the annual Contest meeting in June at which I was asked to speak on “the client’s view”. There is no doubt that the risk-based approach to contaminated sites and especially quantitative assessment requires greater confidence in data from site investigations. All laboratories should operate quality control and quality assurance schemes with calibrations, blanks, sensitivity checks and duplicate testing. UKAS accreditation is often quoted as evidence of quality assurance, but it gives no indication of the suitability of test for the intended purpose of the end user. Proficiency testing and participation in schemes such as Contest, Aquacheck or LEAP is a far better indication of a laboratory’s ability to undertake tests reliably. However, the results of proficiency testing are seldom available to third parties, such as those organisations commissioning tests from the laboratories. MCERTS has the potential to provide an indication of data reliability with performance standards set by an authoritative body.

Laboratories have expressed concerns over certain aspects of the MCERTS proposals as applied to the chemical testing of soils. Sampling is potentially a far greater source of data errors than is laboratory analysis, and there is as yet no comparable scheme addressing sampling, in-situ and field tests. The performance standards requested by the Environment Agency are too demanding and prescriptive for certain parameters (e.g. limit of detection of 20mg/kg for sulphates) and ill defined for certain parameters (e.g. are “polyaromatic hydrocarbons” represented by the sum of USEPA priority 16 or defined by other means?).

The Environment Agency is considering certification schemes to address field aspects including sampling. It is worth noting, at this point, that the Agency has produced guidance, (including Technical aspects of site investigation, P5-065/TR and Secondary model procedures for development of appropriate soil sampling strategies, P5-066/TR), though this has been poorly publicised.

Accreditation of laboratories to BS EN ISO/IEC 17025:2000 (General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories) is significant: clause 4.1.2 states that it is the responsibility of the laboratory to carry out its testing and calibration activities in such a way as to satisfy the needs of the client. The requirement for the laboratory to understand the client’s needs is explicit. Currently, too many clients will commission testing without discussing objectives with the laboratory. Unfortunately, the market is driven by price rather than quality and there are still laboratories that offer methods that are inappropriate. An uninformed client cannot distinguish between good and bad service providers. The introduction of MCERTS and accreditation to BS EN ISO/IEC 17025:2000 could act as a catalyst to encourage the engagement of laboratories earlier in the investigation process, thus ensuring that the laboratory methods are fit for purpose.

MCERTS does not specify the methods of analysis, and proficiency testing shows an astonishingly wide variation in results for certain parameters. This is due to the variety of methods in use and economic pressures in a market where there is over capacity, as well as poor parameter definition and lack of performance standards. Method specification through international standards is an extremely slow process and not favoured in the UK. Research has however been undertaken, funded by the Government and the Environment Agency, on appropriate methods of analysis, and the results of this research are still awaited.

Finally, the risk assessment approach to contaminated land requires further guidance which has yet to be provided by the regulators, including suitability of leaching tests, bio-availability and toxicity assessments. The process of investigation and assessment is complex and potential for errors considerable, but MCERTS should at least address one part of the process and raise the importance of appropriate data.

References: Environment Agency, Performance Standard for Laboratories Undertaking Chemical Testing of Soil, May 2002, Version 1 <http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/commondata/105385/soiltest.pdf> UKAP, Good Regulation and Competitiveness Network – Environment Sector Study, July 2001, <http://www.chemsoc.org/pdf/ukap/enviro.pdf> Hazel Davidson, VAM Bulletin No. 21, 1999, 4 , <http://www.vam.org.uk/news/news_bulletin.asp>

*Note: The intention to implement to this timetable has been withdrawn to allow a more realistic timescale for the accreditation of laboratories. A statement on the EA website reads:

‘Having recently met with UKAS and discussed the concerns of a number of laboratories with respect to the timescales for compliance, the Agency has decided to revise the phased approach to implementation of its requirements to allow a longer lead in time. In addition, the Agency has decided to take this opportunity to review the detail set out in the performance standard with a view to streamlining the additional requirements over EN ISO/IEC 17025:2000 which are already assessed. We will issue a revised implementation policy and performance standard shortly. In the interim, laboratories are urged to seek the accreditation to EN ISO/IEC 17025:2000 for the chemical testing of soils which is already available.

Article Safety

SAFETY MANUAL FOR INVESTIGATION SITES

- by
Tags: health and safety law regulations Safety Manual

The AGS Safety Manual for Investigation Sites was first published in 1992. It has now been extensively revised and extended to reflect the changes in health and safety law and codes of practice which have been introduced in recent years. The manual is designed to provide mangers and supervisors with an easy-to-follow, practical guide to Health and Safety legislation. It will help them understand and maintain the high standards of health and safety required on investigation sites and in offices, both on- and off-site. For ease of use, the manual has been divided into two parts. Part I, which includes Sections 1 to 10 describes in outline current Health and Safety Legislation, while Part II provides guidance and procedures. Each chapter in the manual begins with a list of the main topics covered by the chapter and ends with a list of references from which further and more detailed information may be obtained about the topics covered in the chapter. A model Health and Safety Plan has been included at the end of the manual for users to refine and extend as appropriate to their projects. Whilst some of the legislation is quite specific in its application, other codes of regulations apply to almost every aspect of work. For example, the Display Screen Equipment regulations apply only to workstations incorporating equipment such as VDU’s whereas the Management of Health and Safety at Work regulations apply wherever employees or the self employed are at work. For this reason and to avoid repetition of text, many of the chapters in the manual contain cross- references to other chapters. COST Members Non Members Looseleaf Folder £50 £150 CD* £80 £240 Both £100 £300

* May be used on a company intranet

Article Loss Prevention

INSURANCE CORNER

- by
Tags: Loss of Documents Professional Indemnity policies

What is insurance for loss of original documents? Do we need it?

Traditionally, Loss of Documents, was covered as a specific item under a material damage policy and met the cost of replacing the documents but not the costs of re-sourcing the information that was contained on them. Subsequently, Business Interruption policies were also extended and they would meet the re-sourcing costs. It is now possible to arrange the cover on a joint basis covering both replacement of materials as well as the re-sourcing costs within one overall sum insured.

There has also been a similar extension available under a computer insurance for material and data held thereon.

It addition to the material damage cover, it has been possible to extend Professional Indemnity policies to include Loss of Documents. This commenced as a “Legal Liability to Clients” protection only but gradually extended to include first party documents as well. However, following the enormous Loss of Documents claim in respect of the World Trade Centre the PI extensions are now generally reverting to their original, more limited cover.

The answer as to whether you need the cover is probably – yes – but it does depend very much on what documents you hold and where there are copies.

There is some debate over actual contract documents, where there have been cases of these being unenforceable unless they were the originals, despite the fact that they were computer generated. Although the Courts will generally now accept computer copies, this may not always be the case.

Away from contracts, the concern is regarding documentation and findings related to investigations along with, possibly, designs. Although the finished report may exist, with both Principal and Consultant, you may be called upon to justify your findings in the event of an incident occurring. This could be very costly – or impossible – if the original papers do not exist. The same situation could occur with designs if back-up copies of all relevant documents are not kept.

The key is to make sure that you have copies stored away from the premises and to buy the insurance cover against the worst case scenario.

I am a self employed consultant doing some work for a large firm. They have said that I am covered by their insurance. Can I rely on this?

The initial temptation is to say – “Yes” – on the basis that if the cover isn’t there then you are in a contractural situation, where you would be able to sue them in respect of any actual loss.

However, let’s look at the situation a bit more closely.

1. What insurances do they say that they are providing cover under for you? Any large business would have a wide portfolio of insurances, many of which would be irrelevant as far as you are concerned.

2. Have you received confirmation in writing? If so have they specified exactly what covers you would have benefit from? This is particularly important when you want to consider what liabilities you are still carrying yourself.

3. What are their indemnity limits? It would be easy to assume that just because they are “large” that they will have sufficient limits to cover any eventuality and that they must be bigger than any limits that you would purchase yourself. Are you happy with the limits?

4. How are you covered? Are you just noted as having an interest or are you a joint insured for the project? If it’s the first then there could still be a possibility of their insurers subrogating rights against you if you were negligent in respect of the incident concerned.

5. Are there any limiting terms and conditions? For example, is the policy subject to a large deductible, which will mean that you have to pay this sum off of any claim. Or is there a contribution clause, which says that if you have any insurance in your own name then it could be brought into contribution with the main policy in the event of an incident.

6. Should you be concerned regarding the security of the insurers? If you’ve not had any say in the insurance are you sure that the insurers concerned will still be there to meet any claim and will not have ceased trading.

In conclusion therefore it would be correct to say that there is no legal barrier to accepting the situation but beware of what you are receiving.