Article

BS 8485:2015+A1:2019

- by
Tags: Featured

In response to comments from industry, the working group for BS8485 have updated and released the following which can now be ordered or downloaded from BSI. Please note that this is a technical reference, can be normative and the most current version should be that cited in reports.

BS 8485:2015+A1:2019 Code of practice for the design of protective measures for methane and carbon dioxide ground gases for new buildings describes how to characterise sites and prevent the entry of toxic, asphyxiating or explosive ground gases. This 2019 amendment changes and clarifies:

  • The minimum gas protection points required for Buildings Type B, C and D on High and Very High gas hazard sites.
  • The assignment of gas protection points for the structural barrier for basements.
  • The criteria for membranes that can be assigned 2 gas protection points when used as a gas resistant membrane.
  • The membrane thickness test method applicable to the guidance in the code of practice.

Other industry guidance exists but none provides the same clarity on remedial solution selection.

This standard also helps you comply with Building Regulations Approved Document C: Site preparation and resistance to contaminants and moisture.

Article Report Safety

AGS Safety Working Group Update

- by
Tags: Featured

The first AGS Safety Working Group meeting of 2019 took place on Wednesday 23rd January 2019 and the Leader of the AGS Safety Working Group, Adam Latimer of Ian Farmer Associates, has provided an update on the top issues the Safety Working Group are currently discussing.

AGS Health & Safety Conference – 21st November 2019

The AGS will be holding a conference on Health, Safety & Environmental topics on 21st November 2019 at the National Motorcycle Museum, Birmingham. The conference will include key note speakers and break-out workshops. The speaker line-up will be announced in the AGS Magazine and on the AGS website in due course. Details of the sponsorship packages can be viewed on the AGS website.

New and Updated Health and Safety Guidance

The Safety Working Group have recently published a number of guidance documents including Guidance on Slope Climbing Rigs, Manual Handling and Unexploded Ordnance. The Safety Working Group are also progressing with guidance documents on track mats and tracked plant, the H&S Risk Assessment for Ground Investigation and minimum levels of training and competence. There are plans to develop a range of topics centred around health and well-being. The creation of bespoke and clear guidance for ground engineers is a key aim of the Safety Working Group. H&S legislation can be a mine field to navigate and these concise and succinct publications offer some clarity for our members. Compliance with Health & Safety legislation is of critical importance in everything our members do and as such the AGS offers our members free and unbiased guidance on the main issues affecting our industry. AGS Guidance can be downloaded from the AGS website.

AGS Safety Articles

The AGS Safety Working Group are working to produce a number of articles on trial pitting, PAS 128 (now published), track plant, occupational health and heat stress for future issues of the AGS Magazine. Despite the guidance being free to download from the website, the AGS magazine offers an invaluable mechanism to promote the work of the AGS SWG and provide the guidance to a wider audience. The AGS is always looking at ways to raise awareness within our industry and up-to-date guidance and magazine articles are an excellent vehicle to convey our message. The AGS continues to work collaboratively with all our members and other trade association groups to improve our industry.

Possibility of a Health, Safety and Environment Awareness Workshop to Undergraduates

The AGS Safety Working Group are in the early stages of investigating the possibility of a Health, Safety and Environmental Awareness Workshop to Undergraduates. Work is ongoing to establish the current level of understanding on university geosciences courses and whether a workshop would be beneficial.

Feedback

The Safety Working Group always welcomes new members and any feedback from the membership on hot topics that they wish to raise and encourage, any near misses and incidents to be shared to the wider industry, so we can strive to making our industry safer. Please send any feedback to ags@ags.org.uk.

 

Article

AGS Helplines

- by
Tags: Featured

All Members of the Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists are entitled to free chemical and contractual advice through the use of Loss Prevention Committee Members, Marquis & Lord and Beale & Co.

For advice on chemical safety and best practice, Marquis & Lord will provide 30 minutes of free advice to all AGS Members.

Additionally, if you’re an AGS Member and are looking for legal advice, please contact Beale & Co and ask quote ‘AGS Helpline’ where the first 15 minutes of legal advice will be free of charge.

CHEMICAL SAFETY HELPLINE

Marquis & Lord            

Tel: +44 (0) 121 288 2386

www.marquisandlord.com

LEGAL HELPLINE

Beale & Co

Telephone: +44 (0) 20 7469 0400 (Please quote ‘AGS Helpline’)

www.beale-law.com

If you have any queries regarding AGS Data Format, there is a discussion forum on the AGS Data Format website, where queries can be posted and answered by the Data Format team.

For all other queries, please email ags@ags.org.uk, we will then forward your email to the relevant AGS Working Group.

News

AGS Magazine: January / February 2019

- by
Tags: Featured

The Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists are pleased to announce the January/February issue of their bi-monthly publication; AGS Magazine. To view the magazine click HERE.

This free, bimonthly 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 month’s issue including;

AGS Photography Competition: The Results – Page 6
PAS 128: The Essentials – Page 8
Variability in Asbestos Analysis in Soil – Page 12
Standards and Professionalism – Page 16
Borehole Sites & Operations Regulations 1995 – Page 20

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

Standards and Professionalism

- by
Tags: Featured SiLC

I will try to limit this essay to Standards and Professionalism as they relate to the work undertaken, day-to-day by SiLCs and other practitioners in related fields. These standards are, by and large, common to all professions and are the backbone to their historical and continuing success.

The reader may be a fresh graduate starting out, or they may be a person with several degrees, chartered, at director level who has been working for years, or somewhere in between. The critical common factors are agreed norms which must be maintained and improved, throughout our careers. These are the Standards and Professionalism I am promoting.

In public life we often hear about standards when they are flouted or transgressed in some manner. We read headlines such as – “Trading Standards prosecute shop owner”, “Negligence case raised because some organisation ignored the latest guidance”, “Staff suspended for breaches of codes of conduct”, etc. Is it that things are getting worse in the “post-truth” world of lies and fake news? Where even reliance on experts (that’s you and I dear reader) was made suspect even by the fickle Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. What is happening the rest of the time when we have no shock headlines, and all seems fine with the world? The answer; standards work!

In order to provide common ground for discussion, a web-search provided me with definitions of Standards which might reasonably be distilled thus: “A standard is an agreed way of doing something. It could be about making a product, managing a process, delivering a service or supplying materials – standards can cover a huge range of activities undertaken by organizations and used by their customers.” In more specific terms a standard is something a person or organisation SHALL or MUST do; it is not optional. This is akin to a Statute or Law. Failure to comply could have serious repercussions. It could mean some form of disciplinary process, maybe being “struck off” or actual criminal prosecution if human life, the environment, property, etc. is put in jeopardy.

Defining Professionalism is trickier but yields the following salient items:
1. Specialised Knowledge. Professionals are known for their knowledge in a specified field;
2. Competent. Professionals get the job done;
3. Honesty, Integrity, Accountability, Self-Regulation;
4. Building Expertise; and
5. Developing Emotional Intelligence (self-awareness, self-management, motivation and empathy).

Having a relevant degree from a recognised university is a reasonable starting point covering Item 1 on the list – then what? Experience and the actual practice of those skills in the field, office, and through interaction with colleagues, contractors and clients will help to develop Item 2.

Many of us will have learned, from our parents and family, and peers, a strong sense of honesty and fairness which has carried us successfully through our lives with a solid set of moral and ethical values. However, in professional life these need to be written down to provide common benchmarks by which we are all judged. These will cover us for Item 3.
What about building on your expertise and developing the emotional and mental strength to exercise these skills? An excellent way to do this is to join like-minded individuals to develop common goals, standards of behaviour and engagement – if only there was something like that? Well of course there is.
I recommend that ALL professionals in all fields pursue chartership as a minimum. Your choice of chartered organisation may be governed by your degree, your job, your employer, etc. By joining such an organisation (you can join more than one if you are very keen), you will be welcomed into a fold including seasoned professionals, novices and people in between – people like you. You will have access to direct help (sponsors and mentors), resources (libraries, standard documents, codes of practice) and lots of advice on how to keep your skills relevant and how to approach various tasks and ways of working. This all goes towards your own continuing professional development (CPD) – Item 4.

This will help create a sensible balance between doing what our client expects and keeping within the standards. This has a bearing on Emotional Intelligence (Item 5) which is considered by many to be essential in respect of career growth, rather than only relying on Items 1 to 4. Humans have an innate drive for acceptance and a need to please others. Professional relationships can become one sided or stressed; there is a risk of falling foul of stepping over the professional line and offerring advice which is what we believe the client wants to hear and not what they need to hear. This points back to diligence, honesty, impartiality and most of all integrity. Professionals MUST be willing, in fact, are honour bound, to deliver bad news when necessary and say “no” to a client at times when the client would prefer a “yes”. In recognition of such rare stresses, with proper and due acknowledgement of mental health issues, chartered organisations provide support and advice in a caring and supportive manner.

This essay is just a taster to spark discussion and hopefully inspire you to become a better professional. Once you embark on a professional career the journey does not end with chartership; that really marks the start of your professional life. You may consider going beyond chartership and consider becoming a SiLC, to improve your professional standing. Ultimately, you only get out what you are willing to put in. The rewards and enjoyment you receive will be well worth it.

Article contributed by James Nelson, Associate Director of Discovery CE Limited on behalf of SiLC

Article Safety

PAS 128 – The Essentials

- by
Tags: Featured

PAS 128 – what is it? Is it simply as a way standardising utility surveys or is it an attempt to minimise health and safety risks associated with any form of intrusive groundwork? First of all – despite it being published by BSI – it is not a British Standard as we usually know it, but rather a specification for the mapping of underground utilities. Therefore, in following the standard the user can demonstrate they have followed a logical and consistent approach to gathering and recording the data, but cannot demonstrate that the approach adopted is the right one for their particular circumstances. That said, PAS 128 does state that one of its purposes is to seek to raise the quality and reliability of such surveys. Crucially Section 0.3 states ”TSA level 3 – EML only survey – is deliberately not accounted for and not included as a detection method because this PAS is looking to raise the standard of detection so that in all cases a minimum of two detection techniques – ground penetrating radar (GPR) and electromagnetic location (EML) – are used.” Clearly therefore the use of a Cable Avoidance Tool (using EML) on its own, a mainstay of buried service avoidance for ground investigation in the past, is not deemed to be adequate for detection purposes. Where EML is used it should be noted that use of a Cable Avoidance Tool in conjunction with a signal generator (Genny) will often increase the reliability and capability of this technique.

PAS 128:2014 ‘Specification for underground utility detection, verification and location’, to give it its full title, identifies four types of utility survey ranging in a hierarchy from Type D to Type A with the latter providing the most detail and highest level of confidence in the position of the utilities. Generally one type will follow the previous with Survey Type D being a precursor to Type C and so on. However, as the document does not specify which type of survey or level of confidence is appropriate for any given situation, it is therefore of little comfort to know that buried utilities searches have been ‘carried out in accordance with PAS 128’ unless the type of Survey used is appropriate to the situation in hand. However that is not to say that the type of survey adopted is optional as PAS128 does state that this should be decided on a case by case basis with all parties, based on the level of risk at a certain location.
In PAS 128 a Type D (Desktop) survey is essentially a desk based one. This would often be appropriate at the ground investigation planning stage and might form part of the CDM Designer’s Risk Assessment – to simply locate exploratory holes away from the recorded location of buried services.

The successive levels of Survey Type C through to Type A require increasing levels of effort and therefore expense. The next level, a Type C (‘Reconnaissance’) survey, would involve a site walkover such that existing records are supported and validated by the visual inspection of physical evidence observed. In the context of ground investigation, it makes sense for this next level of survey to form part of the planning/design stage so that the exploratory hole positions and designer’s risk assessment can be updated accordingly.
A Type B (Detection) survey is probably the minimum level that is appropriate to most ground investigation work whether specified by the client/consultant or not. It involves the use of geophysical techniques to detect buried services and PAS 128 suggests that the primary techniques to be used are EML (Electro-Magnetic Locating) and GPR (Ground penetrating Radar). The EML technique is most commonly manifested using a CAT (Cable Avoidance Tool) various models of which offer varying levels of accuracy and sophistication. The guidance recommends that more than one geophysical technique should always be used. Note 4 of the PAS states that “No detection technique can detect every type of underground utility in every location” and hence the possibility of undetected services being present must be recognised even when multiple geophysical techniques are adopted. In the context of ground investigation contractors often request an ‘underground utility clearance’. However the limitations of detection surveys should be recognised.

Furthermore it is worth noting that there are different quality levels within the survey types based on level of accuracy possible. Due to ground conditions / depths of services different quality levels are obtained. For example a Type B survey, a B2 quality level reflects an accuracy 250mm or 40% of detected depth, whereas a B1 quality is 150mm or 15% detected depth. However in the context of ground investigation the precise location and depth is only important in so far as this helps to prevent damage occurring during the investigation process.
Clearly, where services are present, the only way to get 100% confidence of a service type, location and depth is to physically expose the service – known as a Type A (Verification) survey. Of course such a survey, by its invasive nature, carries its own risks in terms of hitting and damaging buried services. Hand digging with uninsulated tools or with damaged insulation can be hazardous and alternatives like vacuum extraction can be relatively expensive. Vacuum extraction may not be practical and in any case does carry its own risks.
Generally the approach to the investigation of buried services should follow the guidance in HSG47 (2014) 3rd edition. Crucially HSG47 described the process as comprising 3 stages (1) planning the work, (2) locating and identifying buried services and (3) safe excavation. You will note the emphasis in HSG47 is one of locating services, not simply trying to establish the absence of services as is often the approach taken in ground investigation, due to financial constraints or otherwise.

Physically verifying every service may not always be appropriate in the context of GI works – however there will always remain uncertainty over the location of any buried service which has not been subject to verification. In order to reduce the risk as low as reasonably practicable with regard to avoiding danger from underground services, designers should carefully consider specifying as a minimum a Type B PAS 128 survey as part of the GI. In many cases an ‘avoidance’ approach may be deemed to be adequate. However for critical services, for example medium/high pressure gas mains, it is always advisable to undertake verification, because the assumed position can never be taken for granted. In following HSG47 asset owners should be contacted for high risk apparatus and it is then for the asset owner to identify the control measures to be put in place. Utility providers have their own recommended ‘clearance’ distances for excavations, digging or drilling and this is different for each asset owner. Finally it is worth heeding the warning in section 9.2 “For all excavations, assume that underground utilities are present and act accordingly.”

Article contributed by Peter Boyd

Article Contaminated Land

Variability in Asbestos Analysis in Soil

- by
Tags: Featured

Improvements in methods
There have been efforts to improve the analysis for asbestos in the last ten years:
Analysis methods changed significantly around 2011-2014 with more scrutiny from UKAS. Prior to this, laboratories tended to offer a standalone visual screen to determine if asbestos containing material was present in the sample, but this would only cover pieces of asbestos containing material (ACM) and fibre bundles, and would not include small fragments or free fibres.

• A Blue Book method has been developed and while still in draft the basic methodology has generally been adopted by the majority of laboratories across the UK.

The Blue Book method includes identification of asbestos fibres under a microscope. This analysis is a time intensive process using analysts with a high level of skill and training to identify, count and measure fibres on the filters examined under the microscope.

Remaining Variability
Despite these changes there have been a number of comments on the variability of soil analysis for asbestos including an article in Geoenvironmental Matters which states that “Certainly, it has been rumoured that remediation contractors have come to know which laboratories quote “find asbestos” and which ones don’t.”[1]

[1] Is the quantification of Asbestos in Soils still a lottery? http://geoenvmatters.com/is-the-quantification-of-asbestos-in-soils-still-a-lottery/

In the light of these comments we carried out a review to try to determine the sources of variability across a number of laboratories. As part of this, we spoke to six laboratories and asked about their processes.

Asbestos Screen
A key issue we identified was inconsistency in the asbestos screen (Stage 1 of the blue book method). This is a critical step in all asbestos analysis in soil. If no asbestos is detected in the screen, then typically no further quantification is carried out.

The Stage 1 screening process involves three steps:
1. visual screen of the whole sample.
2. inspection of a dried sub-sample under a stereo microscope (x20 – x40).
3. small representative ‘pinch’ samples mounted on microscope slide at a higher magnification (x80 – x500) using Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM)/ Phase Contrast Microscopy (PCM) techniques.

If asbestos is found at any stage the screen is halted and asbestos is reported as being present.

We had heard rumours that not all laboratories were drying the samples prior to the second stage of the screen, thereby potentially making asbestos harder to detect, however at the time of our review in Spring 2018 the requirement to dry had been introduced into the draft Blue Book method and all the laboratories we spoke to were drying samples prior to the inspection under a stereo microscope.

For this second step of the screen we did encounter wide variation in mass of the sub-sample ranging from 20g to 100g and the amount to be used is not specified in the standard. There is no detection limit on the asbestos screen. It, however, seems obvious that a laboratory screening a larger sub-sample is likely to have a lower detection limit than a laboratory screening a smaller sub-sample but also may have higher costs as the process is more time intensive.

Further Quantification
Stage 2 in the Blue Book method is gravimetric analysis. This involves identification and removal of visible ACMs for gravimetric analysis and subsequent detailed Stage 2 analysis. The detailed Stage 2 analysis comprises inspection of a representative sub-sample under a stereo microscope and the removal of smaller ACM fragments and fibre bundles for identification and gravimetric analysis to determine asbestos percentage by weight.

We note that typically the laboratories tended to use a similar mass of sub-sample for Stage 2 gravimetric analysis to that used in the Stage 1 screening. Interestingly the latest draft of Blue Book sets out that a 20g to 50g sub-sample should be taken forward for Stage 2. Those who have previously taken a larger sub-sample could be at a disadvantage in terms of technical compliance with the Blue Book method and analysis cost, even though their method has a greater chance of finding asbestos. The latest draft of the Blue Book may thus push some laboratories towards a lower sensitivity screening and gravimetric quantification method.

From our discussions it is evident that most laboratories currently carrying out asbestos quantification analysis report the concentration of asbestos from the Stage 2 gravimetric analysis as a single value combining different types of ACM with the mass of fibre bundles. Some of the laboratories have indicated they are able to provide a breakdown of these fractions on request which could be very valuable for those carrying out risk assessment.

Summary
As the CIRIA guidance C733 on Asbestos in soil and made ground states, it is important that asbestos analysis is done well. In the light of the above, we recommend that those procuring laboratory analysis for screening of asbestos in soils using accredited laboratories should discuss the sample preparation and sub-sampling with their laboratory to gain a greater understanding of the quality of the analysis being carried out and its sensitivity. The information on the method should be included alongside the analysis results to enable those using the data to understand its potential limitations. Discussion with the laboratory may also help further increase the understanding of the results of subsequent gravimetric quantification.

Written by Barry Mitcheson, Principal Consultant at Wood Environment and Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Article Loss Prevention

Borehole Sites and Operations Regulations 1995

- by
Tags: Featured

The Borehole Sites and Operations (BSO) Regulations were made under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and came into force in 1995. Although many of the requirements in the BSO Regulations are now carried out routinely, they are still legally enforceable. From discussion with various people in the geotechnical industry, and with the HSE, these regulations appear to have largely been either forgotten or overlooked. The purpose of this article is to remind AGS members of the existence of these regulations and to provide a brief summary of what they entail.
The regulations can read be as a Statutory Instrument on: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1995/2038/contents/made and also, together with HSE guidance in “A guide to the Borehole Sites and Operations Regulations 1995”, 2nd edition published 2008. A web-friendly version of the printed version, adapted for online use, is free to download from http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/books/l72.htm or it can be purchased from HSE Books (£18.00), ISBN 978 0 7176 6287 6.

The BSO Regulations are mostly intended to cover borehole operations for prospecting and extraction of minerals, but they also include boreholes for geotechnical investigation under the category of “Boreholes for any other purpose”.

The regulations require notification to the HSE of borehole sites and operations where the boreholes are 30m deep or more, and within a Mining Area. The boreholes may be being drilled in the future, are being drilled, or may have been drilled and have not yet been abandoned.

A Mining Area is defined as land which lies within 1000m, measured in any direction in 3 dimensions, of any mine currently being worked, or disused, or land where a licence to mine minerals has been granted for coal, natural gas, coal bed methane, or other minerals, in natural strata. Mines include shafts for access, ventilation or pumping, underground roadways, adits, and stopes but do not include opencast mines or quarries. Boreholes used for the storage of gas in natural strata reservoirs from which oil or coal bed methane has previously been extracted are also included as mining activities.

To find out if a site is within a coal mining area, you can visit the Coal Authority website https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/the-coal-authority. Finding reliable information about areas where other minerals were mined requires more work, by reference to a variety of sources, although records may be sparse or uncertain. Reference to the shallow and deeper geology will give clues as to where these may be. Non coal mining can include ironstone, lead/tin, gold, phosphates, halite (rock salt), limestone, oil, gas and others including use of hydraulic fracturing (‘fracking’). However, open cast mining (including quarrying) is not included.

Boreholes for extraction of landfill gas, along with offshore installations or activities carried out from such installations, are excluded from the BSO Regulations. However, an installation that is connected to land by a permanent structure is not an offshore installation and would be included.

For drilling of boreholes 30 metres or more in depth, inside a Mining Area, Regulations 6(3) and 6(5) apply. These are as follows:
• Regulation 6(3): “Where a borehole is being drilled within a mining area to a depth of 30 metres or more, the person entitled to drill the borehole, within 30 days after commencement of its drilling, shall notify the Executive the particulars specified in Part III of Schedule 1 [see below].”
• Regulation 6(5): “The operator of a borehole site or, in the case of particulars previously notified under paragraph (3), the person entitled to drill the borehole shall ensure that the Executive is notified as soon as reasonably practicable of any material change of circumstances which could affect particulars previously notified under … paragraph (3)”.
Part III of Schedule 1 states that the particulars required for a notification to the HSE under Regulation 6(3) are as follows:
1. Name and Address of the person entitled to drill the borehole.
2. Particulars with scale diagrams, where appropriate, of:
a. the OS National Grid Reference of the location of the top of the borehole.
b. its directional path; and
c. its terminal depth and location.
3. A description of the operations to be, or being, performed and a programme of works which includes the dates on which operations are expected to start and finish, or (if past) the dates they started and finished.

The BSO Regulations are in addition to the Health and Safety procedures that are commonly carried out to meet current requirements and expectations applicable to ground investigation works. They are also additional to the requirements to liaise with and inform the Coal Authority when drilling in coal mining areas. There may also be requirements to liaise with other authorities for drilling in mining areas for minerals other than coal.

Article contributed by Chris Vincett, Associate Director, Hydrock Consultants Limited

Article

Q&A with Marian Markham

- by
Tags: Featured

Full Name: Marian Markham BSc (Hons) MSc CGeol FGS PIEMA
Job Title: Principal Geoenvironmental Scientist
Company: Jacobs

Marian is a Chartered Geologist with the Geological Society, London and a Practitioner member of IEMA. She has over 15 years professional experience working at Halcrow Group Limited, now Jacobs. She has worked on a range of land development and infrastructure projects in the UK from desk study to remediation verification stage, often involving demolition and engineering of made ground. Marian holds an undergraduate degree in Geology and a MSc in Environmental Biogeochemistry. Her vocational qualifications include the qualifications BOHS P402 Buildings Surveys and NEBOSH National Certificate in Construction Health and Safety.

What or who inspired you to join the geotechnical industry?
I grew up near Lyme Regis and my interest in geology was inspired from an early age by the ever-changing and eroding Jurassic cliffs there and the legacy of Mary Anning, one of history’s most important fossil collectors and palaeontologists, whose portrait now proudly hangs in the reception of the Geological Society’s Burlington House.

What does a typical day entail?
I do not have a routine day, as you will have read many times before in this magazine about geotechnical and geoenvironmental professionals! No two projects or sites are the same in terms of land quality and assessment. I am currently splitting my time between London and Peterborough, working on the ground investigation design for the Lower Thames Crossing project.

Are there any projects which you’re particularly proud to have been a part of?
HS2 Ltd London-West Midlands ground investigation and my current Lower Thames Crossing project which are both huge infrastructure projects which will help to support the UK transport network and economy.

What are the most challenging aspects of your role?
Keeping up with constantly evolving UK geoenvironmental legislation and industry best practice across a discipline which involves air, water, land, planning, environmental impacts, social, waste management etc.

What AGS Working Group(s) are you a Member of and what are your current focuses?
I am a member of the Safety Working Group and the Contaminated Land Working Group. My current focus is on finalising the revised AGS Asbestos Risk Assessment for Ground Investigations.

What do you enjoy most about being an AGS Member?
I am the only geoenvironmental scientist in my office. It is therefore really helpful to be able to meet with other professionals at AGS meetings to directly discuss experiences and knowledge of current health, safety and geoenvironmental issues and challenges that our industry faces.

What do you find beneficial about being an AGS Member?
I believe the AGS guidance documents and magazine are a useful source of guidance directly from geotechnical practitioners. It is also important for the AGS members to be able to lobby Regulators and other key stakeholders as a united voice from a well-respected professional body, not just an individual. I will also be attending the AGS Conference in April, for which free* tickets are available to AGS members. *Terms and Conditions apply.

Why do you feel the AGS is important to the industry?
The mix of ground investigation contractors, suppliers and consultants who can all exchange views, concerns, ideas, safety alerts and publish useful industry guidance and technical standards on improving our science, which is made available to all through the AGS website.

What changes would you like to see implemented in the geotechnical industry?
I would like it to be accepted as normal and run of the mill for a robust and fully financed site investigation to be seen as part of the solution to support a competent design and successful construction of a development project, rather than part of the problem.

Article

AGS Photography Competition – The Results

- by
Tags: Featured photography

In September 2018, the AGS launched their first photography competition to try and capture the industry’s most creative working images.

A staggered 71 entries were submitted, each covering a range of topics across the geotechnical and geoenvironmental sector including site work, team work, landscape imagery and machinery shots.

The AGS Magazine Editorial Board took the challenging task to judge the images by scoring across four criteria;

  • Originality and Relevance
  • Composition
  • Colour, Lighting, Exposure and Focus
  • Overall Impression, Impact and Visual Appeal

23 images were shortlisted, and we’re pleased to announce the overall winner of the competition who won a Fortnum and Mason Piccadilly Hamper, and two runners up who have each won a bottle of Champagne;

  • 1ST PLACE: Chris Dimelow, Lankelma – Nearshore Investigations near Youghal. Image taken by John Delaney
  • 2ND PLACE: Johanna Houlahan, RSK – Rampion Offshore Wind Farm. Image taken by Johanna Houlahan
  • 3RD PLACE: Hiram Menezes Goncalves, Imperial College – Shoreham Quarry. Image taken by Hiram Menezes Goncalves

 

WINNING IMAGE: NEARSHORE INVESTIGATIONS NEAR YOUGHAL

Credit: John Delaney

In summer 2018, Lankelma’s Sandpiper C-5 jack-up carried out nearshore investigations for three potential landfall sites near Youghal, at the Irish end of a proposed 500km-long subsea electricity connection between EIRE and France. Wireline Geobore-S drilling and push-sampling formed part of feasibility studies by EirGrid and Réseau de Transport d’Électricité.

 

FIRST RUNNER UP: RAMPION OFFSHORE WIND FARM

Credit: Johanna Houlahan

This photograph showcases the UK south coast’s first offshore wind farm – Rampion Offshore Wind Farm. Rampion consists of 116 wind turbines off the West Sussex coast near Worthing. RSK personnel from offices throughout the UK across numerous disciplines, including geosciences, have helped to help bring this project to fruition.

 

SECOND RUNNER UP: SHOREHAM QUARRY

Credit: Hiram Menezes Goncalves

 The photo was taken in Shoreham Quarry, in West Sussex, as part of a site visit of an Imperial College MSc research. The 30m high Chalk Cliff holds a variety of rock mass features relevant to engineering practice: Faults, dissolution features, flint bands, sub horizontal beddings, subvertical joint sets, soil infilling fractures, preferential water paths.

 

The AGS would like to thank all those who took the time to enter the photography competition. The overall standard of entries was extremely high, and the judging panel found the task challenging in shortlisting the top three entries.

News

AGS Magazine: November/December 2018

- by
Tags: Featured

The Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists are pleased to announce the November/December issue of their bi-monthly publication; AGS Magazine. To view the magazine click HERE.

This free, bimonthly 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 month’s issue including;

The Importance of AGS Data Format – Page 10
Environmental Liability Insurance – Page 14
AGS Marketing & Business Plan – Page 18
Emerging Contaminants – Page 20
Duty of Care: Third-Party Reliance on Geotechnical Reports – Page 24

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 Loss Prevention

Duty of Care: Third-Party Reliance on Geotechnical Reports

- by
Tags: Featured

A summary of Loss Prevention Alert (68), published September 2018

On 25 July 2018 the Technology and Construction Court (“TCC”) handed down judgment in a case which will be of great interest to AGS members: BDW Trading Ltd v Integral Geotechnique (Wales) Ltd [2018] EWHC 1915 (TCC). In the judgment, the TCC provided useful guidance regarding where the duty of care sits when a geotechnical engineer’s report prepared for the seller of land is relied on by the purchaser and what constitutes negligence when considering the content of such reports.

Background

Bridgend County Borough Council (“the Council”) owned the site in question (“the Site”) and intended to sell it for housing development after obtaining planning permission. The Council commissioned a geotechnical report from Integral Geotechnique (Wales) Ltd (“IGL”) which was included in the package of information sent out to potential purchasers.

IGL’s appointment was governed by its standard conditions of engagement which incorporated the ACE Conditions. IGL’s standard conditions included the following clauses, excluding third party rights and limiting liability for contamination:

  • Clause 5: “Nothing in [this contract] confers or purports to confer any third party benefit or any rights to enforce any terms of this contract.”
  • Clause 10: “For any matter arising out of or in connection with pollution or environmental contamination the total liability under or in connection with this agreement at any time shall be limited to the lesser of: the direct costs incurred by the Client [i.e. the Council] in cleaning up the site of the works or any part thereof: and the amount if any recoverable by [IGL] in respect of such claims under any professional indemnity insurance taken out by [IGL].”
  • Clause 11: “Subject to a limit of £300,000 for all such claims.”

It was clear to IGL from the outset that the report it produced following its site investigation would be used for marketing the site to residential developers. With that knowledge, IGL sent the report to the Council under cover of a letter which stated: “We confirm that the attached may be assigned to the site purchaser and onto two further parties.”

Following the completion of the works, the Council put out a tender for the development of the land investigated by IGL. The tender package (containing the IGL report) was received by residential developer BDW Trading Ltd in June 2012. Almost two years later, BDW purchased the site but did not at any point request or receive an assignment of the benefit of IGL’s report from the Council, nor did they seek any legal document from IGL to permit their reliance on it. They did, however, put queries to IGL regarding some aspects of their report.

Groundworks began in 2014 to develop the land and as work progressed extensive asbestos contamination was discovered beneath the grassed-over areas of the Site. Accusing IGL of negligent reporting, BDW sought damages for the cost of asbestos remediation. This claim was based on a perceived failure of IGL to acknowledge the possibility of asbestos contamination in that area of the Site. BDW claimed that had IGL’s investigations and report been non-negligent, the asbestos would have been discovered prior to sale of the site and BDW would have negotiated a reduction in the purchase price accordingly.

Duty of Care in Tort

Once the case was taken to court, it became apparent that BDW had not taken an assignment of the report and therefore had no contractual claim against IGL. However, BDW argued that IGL owed a duty of care in tort on the basis that IGL knew that BDW had received a copy of their report, had read it and relied on it when purchasing the site.

The Judge in the case, Stephen Davies QC concluded that, “… if BDW wanted to place legal reliance on the report it would have to obtain an assignment or other legal document from IGL to do so …”

The judge also drew a clear distinction between a purchaser “using” the report, in the sense of reading it, asking questions and making decisions based on it, and “relying” on it in the sense of having a legal right to do so. IGL’s knowledge that a third party was “using” the report did not necessarily give rise to a duty of care and did not do so where IGL had provided the report on the understanding that a third party could not rely on the report without taking an assignment.

Negligence

As BDW had no cause of action, it was not strictly necessary for the court to consider the issue of negligence but it did so on an ‘obiter’ basis. The court stressed the importance of reading the report as a whole against the purpose for which the report had been obtained.

The judge agreed some parts of the report may be open to criticism: the preliminary conceptual site model failed to identify the risk of ACMs originating from the former structures on site being present within made ground and the contamination section of the report also failed to refer to this risk. However, the Judge also made clear that it was important not to cherry pick sections of the report in isolation and that BDW had a responsibility to appreciate the report only provided provisional conclusions based on the scope of the ground investigation and could not be relied upon as definitive.

The judge also highlighted the need to acknowledge the purpose for which the report had been obtained. It was not necessary for IGL’s report to emphasise hypothetical and unquantifiable risks, particularly where it had not been instructed to advise prospective purchasers whether or not to buy the site and, if so, on what terms. Given that they were instructed by the vendor of the site, they would certainly not be expected to “elevate hypothetical risks above the results of site investigations.”

Conclusions

This is a reassuring judgment for geotechnical engineers and one which will greatly assist in the defence of such claims (which are commonplace) in future. Common sense has prevailed in respect of the court’s warning against “cherry-picking” parts of reports, its endorsement of standard disclaimers as to undiscovered hotspots of contamination, and its acknowledgment that reports prepared for vendors are not expected to protect the commercial interests of purchasers.

This judgment also serves as a useful reminder of the significant commercial value of formal assignments of reports (or collateral warranties or letters of reliance) to potential purchasers and other third parties. By agreeing to such mechanisms, consultants are creating entirely new liabilities that they would not otherwise have. Assignments and the like should therefore not be under-sold by AGS members. Further guidance on the assignment of reports can be found in AGS LPA 45.

The full judgment can be found at: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2018/1915.html

Readers are encouraged to read the full Loss Prevention Alert 68, which can be found here.

This article, an edited version of Loss Prevention Alert 68 is, of necessity, generic and is not intended to be a complete or comprehensive statement of the law, nor does it constitute legal or specialist advice. It is intended only to highlight issues that may be of interest to AGS members. Neither the writer, nor AGS, assumes any responsibility for any loss which may arise from accessing, or reliance on the material and all liability is disclaimed accordingly. Professional advice should be taken before applying the content of the Alert to particular circumstances.

The LPA, of which this article is an edited version, was prepared by Zita Mansi of BLM in August 2018. Further information and advice is available through the AGS Legal Helpline.