Article Loss Prevention

Professional Indemnity Insurance Update

- by
Tags: Featured PI Insurance Premiums

As we commence a New Year, the availability and cost of Professional Indemnity (PI) insurance remains a key concern for many practices.  It is likely that many will have experienced the consequence of market contraction throughout 2020 and unfortunately, with insurance capacity continuing to decline, 2021 is unlikely to offer any respite.

It is therefore more important than ever to understand what is driving insurers’ current thinking and what firms can do to protect their position.

Understanding the insurance market cycle

Like many other financial institutions, insurers are bound by capital solvency requirements.
This means that they need to maintain a certain ratio of assets to liabilities to ensure they can meet their obligation to pay claims.  The amount of business an insurer can write is dependent upon the amount of capital they hold in reserve.  When the supply of capital reduces, insurers will take on less business and when it is readily available, they will be able to write more.  That fluctuation in the availability of capital is a key driver of the insurance market cycle, and in turn, the availability and cost of insurance.

Reports suggest that there has been an ‘over supply’ of capital in recent years.  This, coupled with ever increasing commercial pressures, has contributed to a relaxation of underwriting discipline.  In other words, the level of competition within the PI sector has led to behaviours such as the under-pricing of risk, taking on too much exposure and making insufficient allowance for claims.

As the effects of that manifest, the return on investment reduces and capital begins to withdraw from the market; many insurers are not able to take on the same volume of business and some (as we are now seeing) may withdraw from certain market segments (e.g. professions or types of work) or entire classes of insurance.

As a result, problems can arise with the availability and cost of insurance and the breadth of cover provided.

Particular PI insurance challenges for Consultants in the Built Environment

As a specialist class of insurance with long-tail liabilities, PI insurance has traditionally been more susceptible to significant changes than the wider insurance market. Allied to that, is the perceived evolution in risk profile of the construction / built environment sector.

Although the PI market looked very different in early 2017, the cracks were already beginning to show. Even at that point, there was an acknowledged growing risk versus reward imbalance, with construction professionals being asked to do more, for less, under increasingly onerous contracts.

Unaware or unconcerned with the implications, certain insurers continued to focus on growth in (or retention of) market share rather than long-term viability.  Those behaviours were impacting the market, and it was only a matter of time before the effects of that would take hold and capital would begin to exit.

Even before anyone had heard of COVID-19, it seemed inevitable that conditions within the PI insurance market were set to change.  The impact of the combination of events over the last few years: the failure of major contractors; the tragedy of Grenfell and subsequent questions concerning the quality of our buildings; the regulation of construction and the resultant potential legacy risk for insurers.

The availability of insurance capacity will be one of the biggest challenges as we move through the year ahead. It is inevitable that the market will continue to contract and with that we are likely to see a much harder line taken by those Insurers that continue to offer capital within the PI sector for those professions active in the built environment. Insureds should be prepared for:

Further premium increases: By how much is very difficult to say, as this will be heavily dependent upon how low your insurers have been prepared to cede to market pressures in the past. Those insurers that have focused purely on market share at any price will be the ones that are in the greatest need of corrective action to their book of business. Some insurers simply felt that correction was commercially impossible and have exited the market altogether Those that remain can be a lot more selective about which risks they will take on. In some cases, insurers may not offer renewal terms to those exposed to higher risk areas of work or to those practices with poor claims performance.

Higher excess levels: Those practices that are currently paying an excess of less than 1% of their fee income should expect to see higher excesses being imposed. For some areas of high-risk work, insurers may insist that the excess is also applied to defence costs.

Narrowing of coverage: Any one claim coverage has long been a feature of the UK PI market, although AGS members will be aware that any one claim coverage was removed some 20 years ago in relation to pollution and asbestos, with most insurers restricting coverage to aggregate limits only.  In the current marketplace, aggregation of all elements of coverage is being introduced as a way to deal with exposure to other high-risk areas of work. Unfortunately, for the geotechnical sector they are generally viewed as working in the part of the project cycle with the most severe risks and therefore when a hard market sets in, they are often amongst the first to be hit with the most severe coverage restrictions.

What can Insureds do to protect their position?

There is no doubt that the year ahead will be a challenging one commercially. Whilst it is not possible to control what is happening within the Insurance market, there are some steps that insureds can take to help navigate the difficult road ahead.

Early engagement with your broker is vital to ensure you have time to deal with issues that may arise throughout the renewal process. In 2021, time will be a required asset not a luxury. If your insurer has chosen to withdraw from the geotechnical sector or is only prepared to offer aggregated coverage, the earlier you know about this the more time you have to explore alternative solutions. Even small practices should engage with their broker at least 2 months in advance to ensure there is sufficient time to navigate problems that could well arise. Much larger practices should be engaging 6-months ahead of renewal date.

Insurers are requesting far more information than ever before – be prepared to answer additional questions about your Business, particularly around activities of work that will be deemed by the insurers as ‘higher-risk’. AGS members are more likely to be exposed to higher-risk activities by the very nature of the work they undertake (contaminated land, asbestos, basements, tunnels, railways to name but a few).

With the implementation of lockdown and most practices working from home, businesses have had to rapidly adapt their working practices. Insurers will want to understand how risk management procedures continue to be implemented in this changed environment. How do you go about the Q+A process, who signs off on work undertaken by more junior staff etc.? Many insurers now have a question set around COVID-19 and how the business is dealing with the new challenges this presents.

Insurers will want to understand your contractual risk management procedures: do you use them; are you successful in managing liability by way of financial caps and exclusions? do you use industry standard documents?

For those who have been unfortunate enough to be involved in a claim, prepare to be under more scrutiny. A post claim review may be required by insurers but even where it isn’t, drawing up a ‘lessons learned’ document can be a highly effective way to show that you have actively taken steps to avoid running into the same issues.

Work closely with your broker to help to identify particular risks that your business presents to the market and construct a narrative around why those risks have been identified, and how they have been understood and mitigated. Do not underestimate the value of a well conceived and constructed narrative or indeed a general overview of the way in which your business operates. If you can tell a good story about how you run your business, you need to make sure that your insurer hears it from a source that they respect.

At the end of the day, PI costs are going up. The more that you understand insurers’ concerns and, more importantly, how effectively your submission addresses those concerns, the better.

Griffiths & Armour Professional Risks are specialist professional indemnity brokers and risk managers. We advise a number of professional bodies across the construction industry, including ACE, and our specialist Scheme includes many AGS members.

Griffiths & Armour are not immune to changes within the PI market but our long-term approach to sustainable placement and trusted status in the insurance community mean that we remain capable of securing ‘Any One Claim’ cover notwithstanding the general market move to ‘Aggregate’ limits in your sector.

If you have concerns regarding your existing PI arrangements, we would be more than happy to discuss these with you.  Don’t wait until renewal is upon you, do get in touch early and let’s make sure we have sufficient time to help you achieve the best possible outcome.

Sarah McNeill
Associate Director

Griffiths & Armour Professional Risks

0151 600 2071
smcneill@griffithsandarmour.com

www.griffithsandarmour.com

Griffiths & Armour is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority

Article

Q&A with David Hutchinson

- by
Tags: Featured

Name:  David Hutchinson
Job Title:  Route Asset Manager (Geotechnics) – Now retired
Company:  Network Rail Infrastructure Limited

During my geotechnical career I have worked for a variety of organisations in consulting, contracting and asset management in the UK, Canada, Republic of Ireland, United Arab Emirates and Hong Kong.  For the last 14 years of my career, up to 2017 when I retired, I worked in Network Rail, firstly for Network Rail (CTRL) as the Civil Engineering Asset Manager for the High Speed 1 railway, and then as Network Rail’s Geotechnical and Drainage Route Asset Manager for the London North Eastern and East Midlands Routes, based in York.

What or who inspired you to join the geotechnical industry?
In the second year of a general engineering degree I attended a short course on Soil Mechanics given by Professor Andrew Schofield which inspired me to undertake half of my final year studying Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering under Andrew, Dr Peter Wroth and others.  I then joined Soil Mechanics Limited, who encouraged their graduates to attain a second degree.  Imperial College was the choice for many, but I wanted to go further afield, and so studied at the University of Alberta under Professor Morgenstern, who like Andrew Schofield and Peter Wroth was a Rankine lecturer of the early 1980’s. The enthusiasm of geotechnical practitioners and academics for their subject has kept me in this industry for my whole career.

What does a typical day entail?  
There hasn’t really been a “typical day”.  But while working for the railway my phone was with me 24/7.  (Night time calls from railway control heralding some disaster or other were not unusual – guaranteed to dramatically increase the heart rate!)  First thing in the morning I always checked the weather forecast to see what challenges nature was going to throw at me that day, and then checked my emails to see what challenges I was going to get from my colleagues!  Although retired I still check the weather forecast and emails every morning, but at night always leave my mobile phone out of earshot!

Are there any projects which you’re particularly proud of? 
Over the years I have worked on many projects, and I’m proud of them all.  But I’m particularly proud of the people I have worked with, from the drillers in my earliest days supervising ground investigations, through my resident site staff on Landslip Preventive Measures works in Hong Kong, to the team working with me in York.  I like my HK Government given Chinese name 夏,智信 which sounds like my surname and translates as “Mr Summer, wise and trustworthy”!  But my proudest moment was when my line manager in York, in front of my peers, held up my staff as an example of a high performing team!  My advice is to always surround yourself with able and enthusiastic people!

What are the most challenging aspects of your role?  
The challenges at Network Rail were mostly administrative, particularly new initiatives and reorganisations.  I had 8 different line managers during my last 7 years of full-time work!  But the geotechnical task remained the same, and being a small specialist discipline, we were usually left to get on with the job.  It’s very satisfying when things are going smoothly, but there are periods of intense pressure when the railway is closed by a landslip, particularly if a train is derailed.  Route Asset Managers are Key Safety Posts having ultimate responsibility for the actions and consequences of the work of their team regarding passenger and public safety.  However, managing such incidents is the most “exciting” part of the job – leading the recovery by rapidly assessing the problem and the time needed to fix it, organising the response, communicating with the parties affected, and completing the work quickly and safely within the timescales you have given.  My rule was always under promise and over deliver (extending promised completion dates does not go down well!).

What AGS Working Groups are you a member of, and what are your current focusses?
I have been a member of the Loss Prevention Working Group since 2003.  Being in the LPWG and employed by a client organisation is rather unusual, as one of the group’s aims is to minimise our members’ business risks when dealing with their clients!   I became interested in the law in the 1980s while investigating geotechnical failures for cases of litigation in the High Court.  In Hong Kong I had the opportunity to study for a law degree, and on return to the UK a former colleague and chair of the AGS suggested I join the LPWG.  In 2007 (actually while standing in a WW1 German trench on Vimy Ridge!) I received a call asking if I would like to become LPWG chair, a post I held until 2014.  I joined the Business Practice Working Group in 2019.

Since 2003 I have helped to produce AGS documents such as Loss Prevention Alerts, Client Guides and Guidance generally, over a range of topics.  Currently I am updating our Guide to Training Paths for Geoprofessionals, and producing a Client’s Guide to the Selection of Geotechnical Advisers.  I review the downloads of AGS documents from the website to help spot trends and determine which topics are of most interest to our members, and I am updating our archives by collecting copies of published AGS documents which are no longer available for downloading.

What do you enjoy most about being an AGS member? 
I enjoy making a contribution to an industry which has given me the opportunity to work and live in a number of interesting places and to meet so many interesting people.  I want to help clients better understand the issues facing geotechnical practitioners, and to help clients better manage their infrastructure, in particular in the transport sector where I am continuing my membership of the Geotechnical Asset Owners Forum as the AGS representative.

What does your company find beneficial about being an AGS Member?
One of Network Rail’s aims is to create professional and mutually beneficial relationships with its suppliers.  In 2013 NR became the first AGS Client Affiliate Member.  The activities of the AGS and the documents it publishes help NR geotechnical staff broaden their knowledge and experience of the current issues in the industry.

Why do you feel the AGS is important to the industry?
The country must maintain its ability to deliver new infrastructure quickly, efficiently, cost effectively and without damaging existing infrastructure or endangering lives.  The infrastructure must then be maintained to high standards.  The AGS helps to maintain high standards and integrity of ground engineering and geoenvironmental practice, disseminating up to date practical knowledge including industry relevant health and safety guidance, minimising business risks and presenting a coherent industry voice.  It provides a forum for dialogue within the industry, and informs clients and other professionals how to engage with and what to expect from their geotechnical and geoenviromental advisers.  It also helps to explain to clients the risks associated with different engineering solutions and that lowest price for geotechnical and geoenvironmental work does not necessarily give the best investment and long term value for their project.

What changes would you like to be implemented in the industry?
The industry needs to be attractive to a diverse workforce, as described in a recent AGS webinar, to help reduce future shortages of skilled people.  It must continue to strive for more widespread use of ground information in the AGS data format.  Use of remote sensing, readings from large numbers of sensors on or in the ground and digital data from ground investigations will lead to the use of novel analytical techniques including machine learning and artificial intelligence.  People with the relevant data management and computing skills will be needed to carry out this work, in addition to those with civil engineering, geology and geoscience backgrounds.  A wider discussion is required on how the industry can reduce its carbon usage.

Article Contaminated Land

Standards Relating to Investigation, Assessment, Remediation and Development of Potentially Contaminated and Contaminated Sites

- by
Tags: Featured

Article provided by Mike Smith, Vice-Chair, BSI committee EH4-Soil quality

This new AGS guidance document provides key information required for a proper understanding and use Standard Guidance documents and Standard Specifications such as conventions in the use of language and the need for consistent use of terminology. It also provides information about in which Standards guidance on various topics such as investigation, reporting and remediation can be found.

BS 10175:2011 + A2:2017 Investigation of potentially contaminated sites -Code of practice is the key British Standard relating to the investigation and development of potentially, and proven, contaminated land. However, its proper application depends on following the recommendations or requirements of a constellation of other standards documents (Guidance and Specifications) many of which are European and/or International Standards- see Figure 1. Of particular importance are BS 8576: 2013 Guidance on investigations for ground gas – Permanent gases and Volatile Organic Compounds, BS 10176:2020 Taking soil samples for determination of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) – Specification and the BS ISO 18400 Soil quality – Sampling series of standards. BS 5930:2015 + A1:2020 Code of practice for ground investigations is important not only in respect of geotechnical investigations but also for the guidance it provides on combined geotechnical and geoenvironmental investigations.

Over two hundred guidance documents and Specifications have been produced by the ISO and CEN Technical Committees responsible for soil quality (ISO TC190 Soil quality and CEN TC444 Environmental characterization of solid matrices) including chemical analytical methods, physical test methods, biological test methods and guidance on what to look for when investigations are required for particular purposes. In line with the scopes of BS EH4 Soil quality (the relevant BSI committee), CEN TC 444 and ISO TC190, these various documents cover not only potentially contaminated sites, but natural and near-natural (e.g. farmed) soils, and contribute to understanding interactions between soil and global warming; concepts such as the health of the soil, sustainable use of soil and ecosystem services; and the actual and potential environmental impacts of existing and new chemicals

It is important to recognise that Standards are consensus documents prepared by technical experts and are subject to public consultation – any member of the public is entitled to see and comment on them, but the continuing difficulty that BSI EH4 has in meeting its obligations in this respect is how to let potentially interested parties know that draft documents exist. The formal position is that the representatives of organisations such as AGS are expected to inform and communicate with those they represent (so if you think you are missing out on information about draft standards the first route for complaint should be to AGS or other organisations to which you belong).

EH4 actively seeks to broaden its membership. The wider the membership of EH4, the greater the confidence that the standards produced are technically sound and known about by potential users from a wide variety of backgrounds.  It also increases the pool of people from which it might be possible to draw on from time to time to represent the UK in ISO and CEN Working Groups.

Most of the members of EH4 represent a nominating body but membership is also open to individuals with particular expertise.  BSI provides guidance on its web site on how to get involved with standards (How to get involved with standards). All enquiries will be sent to the relevant committee manager. Alternatively, contact the Committee Manager Jessy Matthew (Jessy.Mathew@bsigroup.com ).

Standards Relating to Investigation, Assessment, Remediation and Development of Potentially Contaminated and Contaminated Sites can be downloaded here.

News

AGS Magazine – November 2020

- by
Tags: Featured

The Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists are pleased to announce the November 2020 issue of their publication; AGS Magazine. To view the magazine click here.

This free, publication focuses on geotechnics, engineering geology and geoenvironmental engineering as well as the work and achievements of the AGS.

There are a number of excellent articles in this issue including;

AGS Yellow Book Photography Competition – Page 4
Ruby Wax talks mental health in the FPS’ latest podcast – Page 6
AGS Upcoming Webinars – Page 8
Environment Agency publishes updated land contamination guidance – Page 12
New CIRIA Guidance on Sustainable Management of Surplus Soils – Page 16
Q&A with Madeleine Bardsley of Wood Group – Page 18

Advertising opportunities are available within future issues of the publication. To view rates and opportunities please view our media pack by clicking HERE.

If you have a news story, article, case study or event which you’d like to tell our editorial team about please email ags@ags.org.uk. Articles should act as opinion pieces and not directly advertise a company. Please note that the publication of editorial and advertising content is subject to the discretion of the editorial board.

Article

Q&A with Madeleine Bardsley

- by
Tags: Featured

Full Name: Madeleine Bardsley
Job Title: Associate Director
Company: Wood Group

I have spent 20 years in geoenvironmental consultancy.  My first taste of site work was as a sponsored student with Taylor Woodrow. After graduating I joined Dames & Moore and worked on ground investigations and remediation schemes.  To get through ICE Chartership, I moved to Mott MacDonald and worked on a mixture of geotechnical and geoenvironmental projects.  In 2002, I decided to focus on land quality projects and joined Enviros’ London team led by Hugh Mallett, whose enthusiasm and knowledge created a perfect environment for learning.  After 13 years, I moved to Wood and now work with a great group of people in the Remediation and Ground Engineering Team.

What or who inspired you to join the geotechnical industry?
At school I loved maths and physics and wanted a career where there was a practical application for your efforts, which led me to civil engineering.  During my degree at UCL, the subject that interested me most was soil mechanics and my lecturer – Dr Richard Bassett – suggested I continue studies by doing a PhD.  I moved universities to Cambridge and studied under Dr Chrysanthi Savvidou looking at a remediation technique using electricity called electrokinetics. Both lecturers inspired me and passed on their enthusiasm for their subject and confidence in my ability.

What does a typical day entail?
One of the joys of our industry is the variety of clients, project scopes and types of sites that we come across.  I’ve been lucky to work on a diverse range of sites including: defence, fuel depots, waste plants, gasworks and housing developments.  Every project is different and there is usually a challenge to keep you interested.

I know it’s a cliché but there really is no ‘typical’ day – I might be reviewing a report, meeting a client, visiting a site, working on initiatives to improve health and safety in our projects, carrying out a principal designer review of a project, organising a team meeting or holding a colleague’s personal development review.  I love the variety.

Are there any projects which you’re particularly proud to have been a part of?
The projects I am most proud of are the ones that I have seen through from contaminated ground to completion of the remediation – bringing land back into use. One project for Brent Council springs to mind, where we investigated and remediated the gardens within a residential part of the borough having successfully applied for funding under Part 2A.  I was Project Director and the client was knowledgeable, decisive and easy to work with.

It’s not a project but I enjoyed being part of the AGS steering group that revised the UK Specification for Ground Investigation (known as the ‘Yellow Book’). I learned a lot from the other members of the Steering Group and am proud of the revised document.

What are the most challenging aspects of your role?
I would say juggling all the demands of the different parts of my role.  I manage a team across three offices, lead on health and safety for Wood’s national team including carrying out Principal Designer reviews, and provide technical direction for several projects.

This year has been a huge challenge and, as most of the team are working from home, it has been difficult keeping people connected and finding the time between numerous Teams calls to stay in touch with colleagues.

What AGS Working Group(s) are you a Member of and what are your current focuses?
I have been a member of the AGS Health and Safety Working Group for over 15 years.  I’ve recently updated the AGS publication on ‘dealing with contamination during an intrusive investigation’ and now I am looking at health issues associated with using vacuum excavation in soils with asbestos where the asbestos is not visible. I’m also part of the recently formed sub-group on trial pitting safety which is looking at the aspects of working at height and emergency planning for trial pitting.

What do you enjoy most about being an AGS Member?
Being part of the Health and Safety Working Group provides a valuable opportunity to raise issues that you are grappling with and work collaboratively with knowledgeable people from across the industry.  The discussion is frank and informed with the aim of coming to a consensus and writing guidance to share.

What do you find beneficial about being an AGS Member?
AGS provides access to a welcoming forum where issues can be raised and discussed with the collective aim of improving the industry.  I also find the publications cover a range of issues and are useful resource – particularly the loss prevention alerts and guidance.

Why do you feel the AGS is important to the industry?
The AGS aims to improve many aspects of the industry through guidance and working group initiatives.  Best practice is developed and shared throughout the industry.  As a trade association it’s able to cover a wider membership than professional institutions and so is more representative of our industry.

What changes would you like to see implemented in the geotechnical industry?
I’m always disappointed when an interview candidate tells me that they do not know what the Construction Design and Management Regulations are and how they apply to ground investigation.  I would like to see a better understanding and the consistent implementation of the Regs across the industry.  There are significant benefits to health and safety in the field if there is consideration of health and safety and rigorous planning at the design stage.

Article

Environment Agency publishes updated land contamination guidance

- by
Tags: Featured

By Phil Fitzgerald, Environment Agency, Advisor: Land contamination management, Water, Land and Biodiversity

On the 8th October 2020 the Environment Agency (EA) republished Land Contamination Risk Management (LCRM). This replaces the Model procedures for the management of land contamination (CLR11), which has been withdrawn.

You can access the updated document from the GOV.UK website.

If you use this guidance outside of England, check with the relevant regulator about its suitability. Local authorities and other regulators may also provide additional guidance.

The EA first published LCRM in June 2019. This was reformed content based on the framework and principles established by CLR11. It represented a major and much needed update.

The EA asked for informal feedback and they had a huge response with about 350 comments from individuals and organisations.

A lot of feedback was provided on the usability of the GOV.UK publishing format – a GOV.UK manual. To address this the EA opted to use a different format. LCRM is now presented as 4 HTML guides that sit on a unique publication page. The HTML guides are:

  1. Before you start the risk management process.
  2. Risk assessment.
  3. Options appraisal.
  4. Remediation and verification.

Helpful checklists for reporting requirements are included at the end of each stage.  The site investigation section, which now aligns more to the relevant British Standards, forms an integral part of the risk assessment stage.

The EA considered putting the whole document together as one single HTML but felt for online guidance it was better to break it down into relevant, useable sections.

Everyone needs to read before you start, then use a tiered approach to risk assessment (always starting with a preliminary risk assessment), then follow stages 2 and 3 in order.

You can print the 4 HTML guides, search for particular terms more easily and save them as PDFs if required.

The latest version will always be on GOV.UK.

For any future changes updates will be visible on the LCRM webpage. For any major updates the EA will also communicate via CL:AIRE e-alerts and through other routes such as twitter – @GeoscienceEA.

Feedback and changes

The majority of the comments were constructive and positive and the EA welcomed the feedback. The EA looked at:

  • the technical content
  • practical matters such as usability, printing, navigation and search
  • the layout and structure including a lack of clarity over stages and tiers
  • suggestions for new and improved content on for example, unexploded ordnance, communicating the risk, piling, geotechnical and treatability studies
  • more alignment to British Standards for the site investigation section

They have also provided clarity and improved text on:

  • who is a competent person
  • the use of MCERTS and Rapid Measurement Techniques (RMTs)
  • the use of Soil Guideline Values (SGVs) and Category 4 Screening Levels (C4SLs)
  • ground gases and vapours

The term ‘contaminant linkage’ rather than ‘pollutant linkage’ is now used. Following the risk assessment stage, they become ‘relevant contaminant linkages.’

There is reference to the voluntary National Quality Mark Scheme (NQMS), which the EA support.

There is a link to the AGS guidance on unexploded ordnance. LCRM will continue to use and reference the CL:AIRE Water and Land Library.

There is now more emphasis on adopting a sustainable approach using for example, the SURF-UK Framework and BS ISO 18504: Soil quality – sustainable remediation.

The EA had feedback on the lack of flow charts. They felt that LCRM does not need all of the flow charts that were in CLR11.  It now follows a logical and clear structure. However, they have not ruled this out and are still considering options.

There was a lot of feedback on the remediation option applicability matrix. This will be updated and re-published before the end of the year. The EA has concentrated on getting the main guidance document republished first as this was delayed due to the COVID-19 situation.

Accessible web content

The EA have to meet laws on producing accessible web content. It must be:

  • accessible to people with disabilities such as visual, motor, cognitive and hearing impairments (in the UK 1 in 5 people have a disability)
  • useable with assistive technology such as screen readers
  • concise, clear and understandable to all
  • available online to use on all devices (laptop, mobile phone, tablet) – about 50% of people viewing EA content now do so via a mobile phone

Withdrawal of CLR11

CLR11 has now been formally withdrawn.

The EA is aware that CLR11 is extensively referenced. There is no immediate action to replace all of these references. If people search GOV.UK for CLR11 they will be redirected to LCRM. For sites that the EA regulate, reference must now be made to LCRM not CLR11.

The archived version of CLR11 may still appear in other online searches. Please ignore this or be aware, that you can only use it for historical reference.

Popularity of LCRM

GOV.UK weekly user statistics show that since LCRM was published on the 8th Oct 2020 there has been a huge interest from the land contamination community with significant downloads.

Future updates

The EA will only be able to update LCRM periodically but if you want to provide any feedback you can continue to do so by emailing Phil Fitzgerald at groundwater.enquiries@environment-agency.gov.uk.

The EA wishes to thank everyone that took the time to respond. They would also like to thank Rebecca Fowler who is an EA digital editor for her excellent support in helping to produce LCRM.

The EA have stated that: “This is not just our guidance, we want industry to embrace it, help us to improve it and keep it up to date. It had a big act to follow.”

 

 

Article

Ruby Wax talks mental health in the FPS’ latest podcast

- by
Tags: Featured

October’s Federation of Piling specialists (FPS) podcast, sponsored by Central Piling, features the highly successful comedian, presenter, author and prominent mental health speaker, Ruby Wax and James Rudoni, Managing Director of Mates in Mind (MiM), the leading UK charity that is changing the conversation around mental health in the workplace.

This special edition podcast explores why construction has such a mental health problem, how to manage fear, as well as what we can all do to help others

Hosting the podcast, FPS Chair Steve Hadley kicked off the discussions exploring first, how Ruby became involved in the issue of mental health. Ruby, in her own comedic style speaks about how she had her own mental health issues but like so many of us, kept them quiet through fear of being stigmatised or even, as was Ruby’s case, being fired. From Comic Relief using her picture across the tube stations to highlight mental illness prevalence, Ruby decided to confront the issue head-on through her stage performances. Her style brought humour to the issue and helped mainstream the issues. Discussing frankly, but with plenty of humour, Ruby talks about her own personal issues, how it led to a Master degree from Oxford. And how her studies concluded with a show built around mental health.

The “derogatory wrap” to mental health is discussed and why it exists, before moving on to how and why it impacts the construction disproportionality to many other industries. Ruby also expresses her thoughts on how mental health will be perhaps the next pandemic and if we will be ready to tackle it? How COVID has opened new ways we can support each other and how it is important we maintain this post-COVID is also discussed.

The intrinsic issues of the construction sector – machismo, poor diet, lack of rest – are discussed and how they are not helping the issues, but worryingly, whilst the industry is moving forward it still has such a long way to go.

Topical at present, Ruby talks about how the “bad news” that we are being constantly hit with is not helping matters and may even be fuelling some of our mental issues. As she comments “we are all Velcro for the negative, but Teflon though for positive”. Ruby follows with how tools such as mindfulness can helps us all cope.

Ruby considers how letting go of ‘stuff’ rather than hanging on to things – negative – can be a real positive move in dealing with anxieties and other mental health issues, as well as the role of tools like Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) and Mindfulness in us all coping. She even poses – we go to the gym each day, why not the same for our mind? If there is a take home message, then its “get to know your own mind”. Ruby also speaks of the importance of listening and engaging with others and recognising the signs of mental illness in others.

Steve then brought James into the conversation and after James explains the origins of Mates in Mind, and why it was needed in the construction sector, Ruby then quizzed him on how it supports construction.

James then talks about how they often begin by defining mental health then on to how workers can self-manage or support colleagues. Getting rid of the stigma being a priority. The sense of community was reiterated in supporting each other through meatal health issues too.

How the charity is changing the culture in the construction sector to remove the embarrassment was detailed and Ruby adds how the word “Mental” may actually be more harmful than calling it what it is “a brain illness” – a condition just like any other physical illness.

The impact of COVID on mental health was also discussed, with James presenting some extremely disturbing figures on its impact. Once again, the importance of communities in our wellbeing is reinforced – that sense of purpose and engagement having such a positive impact on us all.

Steve closes the podcast thanking James and Ruby, but also reiterates how important the issue of mental health is to us all.

A must listen podcast, full of helpful advice and tips, and can be listened to here: https://tinyurl.com/y2kq58et

Article

AGS Yellow Book Photography Competition

- by
Tags: Featured

The AGS are holding a photography competition to source a potential cover for the third edition of the UK Specification for Ground Investigation (Yellow Book). Yellow book is instrumental within the geotechnical industry and is intended to aid general application to ground investigation work as well as associated schedules and bills of quantities. This document is currently within a review process and the Third Edition is due to be published in 2021.

We’re on the lookout for your most creative images which are reflective of the industry. Ideally, the image will be free of people, however this isn’t essential and we’re happy to consider all images of a geotechnical and engineering nature.

Entry into the competition is free and the winner of the competition will win a food hamper basket from luxury retailer, Fortnum and Mason, worth over £75. Three runners up will each win a bottle of Champagne.

There are no restrictions on the photography equipment used, so feel free to use a phone, computer, tablet or a traditional hand-held camera to capture your image.

All entries will be reviewed by select members of the AGS Magazine Editorial Board and the AGS Procurement of Ground Investigation Steering Group, who will decide on a shortlist and a potential winner. Full details will be announced in the March 2021 issue of AGS Magazine.

IMAGE REQUIREMENTS
The AGS are looking for high resolution jpeg images (no less than 300 dpi / over 1mb image file size) of a geotechnical nature. Images should be no smaller than 4200 x 3400 pixels. Please note that landscape images are preferred.

HOW TO ENTER
• Please email your image with;
o A short description of what it showcases and where it was taken (up to 50 words)
o Image credit information (if applicable)
o Your full name
o Company name
o Postal address
to ags@ags.org.uk with the subject title ‘AGS Magazine: Yellow Book Photography Competition’.
• There is no limit to the number of images you enter.
• The deadline for entries is Friday 5th February 2021.
• Entry into the competition is free

TERMS AND CONDITIONS
• Applicants must be aged 18 or over.
• All images must be high resolution and 300 DPI (dots per inch) / over 1mb image file size.
• Applicants must be based in the UK.
• The photographer must have full copyright of all entered images.
• All images entered may be reproduced by the AGS and used in future AGS event and marketing literature without prior notice. This may include usage across the AGS’ social media channels, inclusion in the AGS Magazine, event programmes and on the AGS website. Please note that all images used will be credited.
• The AGS will put forward the winning entry to ICE Publishing for use as a cover image for the Yellow Book but cannot guarantee that it will be used.

Article Report Instrumentation & Monitoring

AGS Instrumentation & Monitoring WG – Update

- by
Tags: Featured

Jonathan Gammon, Leader of the AGS Instrumentation & Monitoring Working Group, has provided an update on the top issues the AGS I&MWG discussed at their last meeting which took place virtually on 16th September 2020.

Critical Links in Ground Engineering Webinar

The I&MWG’s webinar on Critical Links in Ground Engineering is taking place on Wednesday 4th November 2020 at 10am. The four-hour webinar includes presentations from Jonathan Gammon, Philip Child, Paul Burton, Dr Andrew Ridley and Julian Lovell. Further details about the webinar can be found on the AGS website.

Assisting with the AGS Procurement of Ground Investigation Initiative

The I&MWG are currently providing feedback on the Yellow Book extracts and will prepare a proposed rewrite of these sections for the Procurement of Ground Investigation Working Group to review at their next meeting. The I&MWG have also been asked to give examples of their experience of using NEC Forms of Contract for Ground Investigation and to provide feedback regarding procurement processes.

Developing a link with the Geotechnical Asset Owners Forum (GAOF)

The I&MWG are looking to develop a link with the Geotechnical Asset Owners Forum (GAOF). A request has been received for the I&MWG to give a presentation to a future meeting of the Geotechnical Asset Owners Forum, with a view to active participation in the work of GAOF and also GAOF having representation on the I&MWG.

Article

New CIRIA Guidance on Sustainable Management of Surplus Soils

- by
Tags: Featured

Article provided by Andy O’Dea – Technical Director at Cognition Land and Water

Materials management is a key commercial and compliance issue on all construction projects, which often generate large amounts of surplus soil.  Managing these soils and navigating the abundance of associated guidance, regulation and legislation is an important but challenging task.  There are significant complexities around deciding if site soils are a waste or when they have achieved end-of-waste status.  There is also much confusion in the industry on how to classify, handle, store, dispose or reuse such soils whilst ensuring compliance with relevant legal obligations and regulatory requirements.

CIRIA has recognised these difficulties and commissioned a research project with the primary aim of producing concise, up to date, interactive guidance on the whole surplus soil management process from ‘cradle to grave’.  The guidance will allow the user to make informed decisions about how to manage their site soils including defining and classifying wastes, and procedures to be followed for treatment, reuse and disposal.  It will differ from other waste guidance by looking specifically at the management requirements for specific site activities.  This will enable the busy site manager to quickly get to the information they need for the actual process they are undertaking.  It will also help the designer or planner understand soil management options at the outset thereby reducing the opportunities for generation of waste soils in the first place.

Funding has been obtained, the project research contractor has been appointed and the first steering group meeting is to be held in November.  It is proposed that the first draft of the report will be completed by late December 2020 and open consultation workshops will be held in late January 2021.  CIRIA and the Project Steering Group would welcome contributions and comments during the consultation phase to ensure that the report meets the requirements of the industry.  If you have any queries or would like to receive early notification of consultation workshops, please contact CIRIA Project Manager, Joanne Kwan on joanne.kwan@ciria.org.

News

AGS Magazine: September / October 2020

- by
Tags: Featured

The Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists are pleased to announce the September / October 2020 issue of their publication; AGS Magazine. To view the magazine click here.

This free, publication focuses on geotechnics, engineering geology and geoenvironmental engineering as well as the work and achievements of the AGS.

There are a number of excellent articles in this issue including;

AGS Webinar Programme Update – Page 8
The Standard Penetration Test – Its Origin, Evolution and Future – Page 12
Urban Geoscience: Opening the Industry to Inclusive and Diverse Communities – Page 14
Better Risk Management in Ground Engineering – Page 20
Q&A with Jonathan Gammon of Geotechnical Observations – Page 22

Advertising opportunities are available within future issues of the publication. To view rates and opportunities please view our media pack by clicking HERE.

If you have a news story, article, case study or event which you’d like to tell our editorial team about please email ags@ags.org.uk. Articles should act as opinion pieces and not directly advertise a company. Please note that the publication of editorial and advertising content is subject to the discretion of the editorial board.

Article

Q&A with Jonathan Gammon

- by
Tags: Featured

Full Name: Jonathan Robert Arthur Gammon
Job Title: Non-Executive Director / Advisor
Company: Geotechnical Observations Limited (GeO)

I am very fortunate to have enjoyed almost forty-five years of international ground engineering experience working for consultants and contractors. In addition to project work in the UK, Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, I have lived and worked in Hong Kong and New Zealand. I was Geotechnical Design Manager and Resident Engineer for West Rail in Hong Kong and Sub-Surface Design Manager for Dublin Metro North in Ireland. My infrastructure experience in London includes the Northern Line Extension, for which I was the Expert Witness, Engineering at the Public Inquiry, and the Bond Street Station Upgrade for which I was Design Project Manager. From 2014 to 2016, I worked on Phase One of High Speed Two (HS2) as Head of Ground Investigations. In 2019, I was responsible for establishing AGS’s Instrumentation and Monitoring Working Group (I&MWG), of which I am now Leader, and which featured in the June/July 2020 issue of AGS Magazine.

What or who inspired you to join the geotechnical industry?
When studying for my Civil Engineering degree at the University of Surrey in the early 1970s, I was very fortunate to fall under the “spell” of Noel Simons and Bruce Menzies, who taught us Soil Mechanics. Although I had intended to take up a career in bridge engineering – my year in industry had been spent working for contractor Marti AG on the construction of the fantastic Felsenau Bridge in Switzerland – I was easily persuaded to change direction and had their support to gain a place on the MSc Course in Soil Mechanics at Imperial College. In 2018, I was very pleased to be invited by the University of Surrey to give a lecture about my career and acknowledge the inspiration Noel and Bruce had given me. In 2019 I gave the same lecture at Imperial College and could acknowledge the inspiration given to me there.

What does a typical day entail?
I retired from full-time work in August 2017, when I was Technical Director, Tunnelling and Geotechnics at CH2M (now Jacobs). In late 2018, I was delighted when Managing Director Andrew Ridley gave me the opportunity to be, on a part-time basis, Non-Executive Director and Advisor at instrumentation and monitoring (I&M) specialists Geotechnical Observations Limited (GeO).
One of the features of previous AGS Magazine “Q&As” has been an inability to assign the word “typical” to our days. Even in semi-retirement this applies. I am fortunate to have opportunities to join fitness classes at a nearby gym, or online during the COVID-19 lockdown, so some days start in that way. I will also admit that some days involve the typical retirement pastimes of gardening and walking!

My work at GeO and my input in a volunteer capacity to AGS and other organisations means that I keep a keen eye on the technical press. Most days I will be receiving and sending emails and searching out news and information via the internet. Zoom, Teams, and similar Calls often feature during my day. WhatsApp messages arrive and need attention. I have benefitted from watching excellent webinars on a wide range of topics.

Although based at home in West Sussex, I always enjoy the opportunity to travel to our offices in Weybridge and to catch up with everyone there. In November last year Andrew and I made a successful business visit to Switzerland, where I was able to use the German I had learned all those years ago for my Industrial Year at Surrey!

Once a month I prepare my Report to the GeO Board and take an active part in the Board Meeting.

I am a STEM Ambassador and that led to my role as a Volunteer at the Science Museum in London which would, prior to COVID-19, feature regularly in my calendar.

I am fortunate to have contact with those who have worked for me going back many decades and, as a Chartered Engineer and Chartered Geologist, I have been able to help those applying for their own professional qualifications. As a Fellow of Engineering New Zealand, I continue to take part in the on-line Assessments of UK-based candidates for New Zealand professional qualifications

Are there any projects which you’re particularly proud to have been a part of?
Yes. And I am very lucky to have too many to list here! However, when pressed for an answer I will readily admit that my very first project – the Felsenau Bridge in Switzerland, where I learned about foundations, superstructures, temporary works, and site operations and was given an astonishing amount of responsibility – is still a favourite. I am also particularly proud of all the wonderful staff who have worked with me on projects in the UK and overseas.

What are the most challenging aspects of your role?
One challenge, being semi-retired, is not having the daily contact with friends and colleagues that I enjoyed when working full-time. That situation has applied to almost everyone during the COVID-19 lockdown, so there should now be a wider appreciation of that aspect of retirement.
I am fortunate to have a never-ending To Do list, not all work-related, and a major challenge is setting priorities and trying to exercise effective time-management. I had thought I would be able to keep up to date with my reading of the journals that my professional memberships keep supplying through my letter-box; that has proven harder than expected, even more so when the journals are delivered electronically.
Directly related to my part-time role at GeO, the most challenging aspect would be keeping sufficiently engaged with our overall operations and commercial well-being to know where I can best apply my experience and provide the advice required of me. I am very fortunate to be able to continue my involvement with, and passion for, civil engineering in this way but it is a challenge not to make it a full-time commitment.

What AGS Working Group(s) are you a Member of and what are your current focuses?
I am the Leader of the Instrumentation and Monitoring Working Group (I&MWG). Members of the I&MWG are nominated to be Primary Contacts with the other AGS Working Groups, and I represent the I&MWG on the Business Practice WG.
We are currently focussing on: the I&M Webinar we are broadcasting on 4 November 2020 at 10am; input to the revision of the “Yellow Book” (UK Specification for Ground Investigation); and contributing to the AGS initiative relating to procurement and related matters as influenced by the Institution of Civil Engineers’ “Project 13”. We also expect to be helping the British Tunnelling Society with revisions to their published documents and contributing to the work of CIRIA.
Education, training, and qualifications for those working in I&M receive on-going attention.

What do you enjoy most about being an AGS Member?
I attended the meeting at Imperial College in 1988 that led to the formation of AGS, I helped establish AGS in Hong Kong in the late 1990s, and I was Chairman of AGS from 2008 to 2010. I was both surprised and delighted to be made an Honorary Member of AGS in 2019. So, it is fantastic to be able to continue my very enjoyable involvement with AGS and to represent the I&MWG and GeO on AGS’s Executive.
AGS Meetings, Seminars, and other events are not only informative and stimulating. They are also enjoyable. It is a hallmark of AGS. I have been told by guests invited to our meetings that they find them a refreshing change from other gatherings of a similar kind. That is not to say that we do not have differences of opinion and some very robust debates before reaching final decisions. We do. This reflects the breadth of experience, the different work-place roles, and the range of ages sat around the table. Mutual respect is a feature of AGS membership; that means that no “harm” is done because of such exchanges and enjoyment persists.

What do you find beneficial about being an AGS Member?
As a Member, we have access to the fantastic library of guidance and information – and the Help Lines – that AGS provides. And to the practical advice and know-how available directly from other Members. AGS Seminars and Webinars on a wide range of topics are very beneficial to Members.

Membership also generates the awareness, particularly to those just setting out in careers, that the term “specialist” is far from being equal in meaning to “narrow”. The breadth of involvement of geotechnical and geoenvironmental specialists in projects is huge. The opportunities to be engaged in ground engineering are immense. The names of the Working Groups at AGS, with active participation in their activities always extremely beneficial, reflect the diverse nature of the membership of AGS.

Why do you feel the AGS is important to the industry?

As someone who was involved in that first meeting in 1988 that led to the formation of AGS, I can confidently say that AGS is as important to the industry today as it was then. During the 1980s it was becoming very clear that the “learned societies” and the professional bodies were unable to represent, fairly or adequately, the whole range of types of companies and organisations that were working in or contributing to geotechnical activity. Adopting the role of a Trade Association, AGS increased in importance to those involved in ground investigation, laboratory testing, equipment and material supplies, education and training, insurance and legal matters, as well as those working as specialists within consultants or contractors or working as sole practitioners who then had access to a wealth of know-how and experience not easily available elsewhere.

Initially an Association of Geotechnical Specialists, it was not long before those working in the “new” Geoenvironmental sector found themselves welcome at AGS. The outstanding success of the Contaminated Land Working Group from those earliest of days is testament, alone, to the importance of AGS to the industry. As has been the establishment of the Loss Prevention Working Group.

AGS is a unique and vital organisation. Less than ten years after AGS was established in the UK, I arrived back in Hong Kong for a second period of work on the exciting geotechnical and geoenvironmental challenges there. Immediately, and with the support of the whole specialist community for reasons that echoed the UK in 1988, I found myself involved in setting up a “sister” to the UK’s AGS. With the enormous assistance of the wonderful AGS Secretariat, an AGS Hong Kong came into being and persists with great importance to this day; its programme of Continuing Professional Development events is highly regarded and much treasured.

What changes would you like to see implemented in the geotechnical industry?

Those working in the geotechnical industry, irrespective of background or area of work, do seem to get on well with each other. However, this sense of “camaraderie” does not seem to find its way easily into commercial arrangements. When looking after the Ground Investigation for Phase One of HS2 I spoke on several occasions about the benefits that would be realised if contractors would collaborate and form Joint Ventures. In some instances, ground investigation contractors, as an example, are owned by large Tier One contractors and the opportunities for collaboration then seem remote; a similar situation occurs in I&M. This does conflict, however, with the ability of Tier One contractors (and their consulting engineers’ equivalents) to collaborate with their peers to bid for and secure work.

It is important that we are represented on the various committees and steering groups, national and international, that are involved with Standards, Codes, Specifications, Good Practice Guides, and the like; AGS enables us to do this.

We need to assert ourselves in the arenas occupied by Quantity Surveyors and Structural Engineers, to make sure that geotechnical and geoenvironmental considerations receive timely attention. The need for adequate Baseline Monitoring and, where appropriate, Whole-Life Monitoring, must be understood and underlined.

Attention to the ICE’s “Project 13”, and its related changes, is vital, especially if we are to align the geotechnical industry with the NEC Forms of Contract.

One major change? Not so much in the geotechnical industry but for the industry. To find that Ground Investigation and I&M are thought about and actioned at the appropriate time and do not become an after-thought, entirely out-of-step with the design and construction programme.