Article Instrumentation & Monitoring

Instrumentation and Monitoring: How Not to Get it Wrong webinar summary

- by
Tags: Featured

On 21st June 2023, the AGS held a webinar entitled Instrumentation and Monitoring: How Not to Get it Wrong which was chaired by Daniele Fornelli (AGS Instrumentation and Monitoring Working Group Leader and Associate Technical Director at Geotechnical Observations). Daniele also presented alongside Tim Clegg (Managing Director, Geosense).

The webinar was split into two parts. The first part looked at Instrumentation and Monitoring in Geotechnical Engineering: From Principles to Concept and provided an introduction to Instrumentation and Monitoring (I&M) for Geotechnical Engineering, and to the importance of field monitoring data reliability. The presentation also discussed the main features for the definition of an effective I&M scope.

The second part of the webinar focused on Instrumentation and Monitoring in Geotechnical Engineering: The Importance of Details, highlighting I&M schemes, used to illustrate some of the challenges associated with the choice, the installation and the data acquisition procedures of typical monitoring instruments used in Geotechnical Engineering projects.

Thank you to Geosense and Terra Insights for sponsoring the webinar.

If you missed the webinar, the recording is now live on the AGS website and can be purchased at £25 for AGS members and £30 for non-members (Ex. VAT).

Article Contaminated Land

Findings of SiLC DoWCoP industry survey: regulatory challenges for regeneration of historical landfills and reuse of stockpiles and mineral waste

- by
Tags: Featured

Given on-going interest and concerns about regulatory constraints to the regeneration of former landfill sites, Specialist in Land Condition (SiLC) has been examining recent regulatory approaches and use of the CL:AIRE Definition of Waste Code of Practice (DoWCoP) in England and Wales.

SiLC held a webinar in June 2022 entitled ‘Regeneration of historical landfill sites – views from multistakeholder perspectives’. This included looking at the history and development of the DoWCoP and the key decisions that underpinned this; presentation of case studies which illustrated how DoWCoP could effectively be used for regeneration of historical landfills while securing environmental betterment and protection of health; and case studies that clearly showed significant concerns with undertaking land regeneration under the permitting regime. Alongside this webinar, SiLC undertook an online survey in August and September 2022 requesting views on the use (and misuse) of the DoWCoP and experiences of the difference between project and programme delivery via DoWCoP and waste recovery permitting. There was a large response to this with some 212 responses received from the consulting, contracting and regulatory brownfield development community. The key take-away messages included a strong desire to maintain the DoWCoP as a robust and effective tool to manage brownfield development (including historical landfills) but also highlighted some issues. For example, the survey responses referred to inappropriate use of the DoWCoP for dealing with mineral wastes, such as colliery spoil.

The DoWCoP was published in 2008 and is currently in its 2nd edition, with a 3rd edition keenly awaited for some time. On 12th July 2021 the Environment Agency (EA) confirmed to SiLC that “Our DoW CoP and Land Contamination leads are in the final stages of drafting internal guidance around these matters as we are aware of the industry’s interest. The guidance will make it clear to our staff the appropriate permitting options for these activities and ensure we maintain consistency in our opinion. We will share this with you once it has been issued and welcome any further comments.”  SiLC wrote to DEFRA and the EA on 21st April 2023 again requesting a review of EA guidance Downloads | Specialist in Land Condition Register Ltd (SiLC)

The current scope of the DoWCoP covers the reuse of soil, rock, dredged material, made ground and aggregates derived from construction and demolition waste as well as stockpiles containing these materials on the site of origin. The 2nd edition expanded the scope of the DoWCoP to include transferring natural soils and rock directly from a donor site to a development. It is however important to note that the DoWCoP specifically excludes application to soil contaminated with invasive weeds, infrastructure (pipes, tanks), construction wastes such as plasterboard, glass and wood, and mining wastes. Whilst not specifically excluding historical landfills from the DoWCoP, it is becoming increasingly the case that the Environment Agency will not support the use of the DoWCoP for any development work on such a site regardless of its licensing/ permitting history and date of deposition.

Table 1

Percentage of respondents who have used DoWCoP for material reuse on:
Historic landfills Old stockpiles Mineral waste or colliery spoil
39% (82 respondents) 65% (137 respondents) 24% (50 respondents)

The figures in Table 1 demonstrate a lack of understanding and confusion within the industry of what the DoWCoP covers and points towards confusion within the regulatory bodies who must confirm no objections (or no response within 21 days) to the reuse of materials in advance of a declaration being made.  One Local Authority respondent reported “we often have to respond to EA/QP issues (i.e. sites being subject to DoWCoP when planning conditions for site investigation have not been satisfied let alone agreed a Remediation Method Statement”.

Over the last three years half the respondents reported being told by the EA they could no longer use DoWCoP for projects they would previously have done so (Graph 1) with the main reason being cited as development of historical landfills. One respondent indicated that personal discussions with EA Area Officers has clearly shown that Area Officers are also frustrated.  They can often see environmental benefits and gains from a proposal that they are told is no longer in line with EA national thinking on the use of DoWCoP.  One QP responded “It is not always going to be acceptable to reuse material from a historical landfill, or a stockpile, these are site specific decisions and often, will not be straight forward.  Rather than a blanket, include or don’t include in DoWCoP, each case should be considered in terms of its Conceptual Site Model.”

Graph 1

While the position for historical landfills is understood not to have yet been formalised the following footer is now appearing on some emails from the EA permitting team “The Environment Agency considers that any material which consists of current or historically landfilled waste remains waste on excavation and therefore cannot be used under DoWCoP.  Excavated landfilled waste materials require appropriate waste controls such as an environmental permit for storage, treatment and deposit.”  Whilst this position is now being circulated, there is limited steer or guidance on specifics such as what constitutes a current or historically landfilled waste, which could again be subject to interpretation.  In addition, consultants have recently reported changes in position within the EA on how sites are to be regulated mid-way through projects.    

30% of respondents had obtained an environmental permit to permanently deposit waste on land as a recovery activity (also referred to as deposit for recovery or DfR for short) in the previous 18 months. The time required to obtain the permit varied with 8% (five) of permits issued in six months or less, average was between 18 months to 2 years, with some reported as five years. Two refusals were reported after 3 years of consultations.

Major benefits of using the DoWCoP compared to a DfR permit are considered to be the reduced time and costs taken to prepare the Material Management Plan and submit the declaration. Where DoWCoP has not been used to support development our survey respondents reported significant cost increases, project delays and worryingly a trend towards the requirement to landfill material off-site and importing virgin aggregates to make up levels (Graph 2). Almost 1 in 5 projects were abandoned because the increased costs and delays to programme. 80% of respondents consider the exclusion of landfills, mining wastes and stockpiles from DoWCoP would hinder brownfield development. Some commonly expressed views were that their exclusion seems arbitrary and would hinder sustainable materials management for no economic, social or environmental benefit. Respondents also acknowledged that there needs to be effective regulatory oversight, particularly with landfilled wastes. Excluding landfills is considered counterproductive to the drive for sustainability and adoption of circular economy principles, leading to superfluous use of virgin materials, which result in the additional use of earth’s resources, increased carbon expenditure from additional transport of materials, impact on the utilisation of key landfill space.  Regeneration of landfill sites can have considerable positive impact on the social value of an area and short term potential negative impacts during redevelopment need to be managed.

Graph 2

There is a significant view from respondents that the DoWCoP should be extended to cover development of landfills and materials from former mining activities including old stockpiles (Graph 3). The existing permitting regime has few advocates within the industry with some calls for a simpler (quicker) standard rules waste recovery permit.

Graph 3

There were also calls to modify the definition of waste to exclude materials for which there is a defined use. The review of legislation since Brexit offers an opportunity to rethink how waste is classified and material is reused within the UK in accordance with circular economy, sustainable development and net zero principles.

Conclusions

There is an increasing trend from the EA to require an environmental permit (deposit for recovery) to manage the reuse of material on development sites (historic, current landfills, stockpiles, possible mining extractive waste etc). The EA does not have capacity within the permitting system to accommodate this increase.  Permit decision times of greater than 6 months will not work in the construction sector. An increasing number of permits need to be bespoke because material for reuse and/or the environmental setting does not fit the standard rule permits available.

The DoWCoP has proved its worth to the brownfield development industry since its publication in 2008. It offers a simple cost-effective and crucially timely approach to managing the reuse of materials in construction. It also provides a pragmatic approach to the sustainable reuse of materials supporting the drive for circular economy, zero waste and enhancing social value all of which are key concerns in relation to brownfield regeneration.  The constraint to regeneration posed by the need to use the permitting regime is at odds with government drivers including brownfield first, recovery from Covid, levelling up and build back better. However, use of the DoWCoP has been inappropriate at times and as an industry we need to tighten up our understanding and application of it to regeneration.

Article provided by Clive Williams (Senior Associate Contaminated Land, Mott MacDonald), Louise Beale (Technical Director, SLR Consulting), Sarah Owen (Senior Associate, Waterman), Sarah Bullock (Associate Director, Atkins) and Catherine Copping (Technical Director, Stantec)

 

Article

AGS Award Winners 2023

- by
Tags: Featured

We were delighted to announce this year’s AGS Award and Commendation Winners at the AGS Annual Conference, held at the Barbican in London on the 27th April 2023.

Chosen from a select number of AGS Working Group Members, these Winners were all nominated by their Working Group Leader in testament to their hard work and dedication to the AGS over the past year.

A huge well done and thank you to the following Award and Commendation Winners:

AGS Loss Prevention Working Group

Chris Hoskins (Award Winner)

Hugh Mallett (Award Winner)

Zita Mansi (Commendation)

 

AGS Safety Working Group

Liz Withington (Award Winner)

Adam Latimer (Award Winner)

 

AGS Geotechnical Working Group

Emma Cronin (Award Winner)

Katharine Barker (Commendation)

 

AGS Data Management Working Group

Tony Daly (Award Winner)

 

AGS Contaminated Land Working Group

Angela Haslam (Award Winner)

 

To view the montage of acceptance speeches from our Winners, just click on the video below.

 

 

News

AGS Magazine: May 2023

- by
Tags: Featured

The Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists is pleased to announce the May 2023 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 Annual Conference 2023 Review – Page 10

AGS Ground Risk Conference: Are you Managing Risks or Taking Risks? – Page 12

Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Industry Accident Statistics 2022 – Page 18

Cyber Insurance – Page 26

Standards Update: March 2023 – Page 28

Plus much, much more!

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 Safety

Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Industry Accident Statistics 2022

- by
Tags: Featured

Within the wider construction industry, the geotechnical & geoenvironmental industry has been criticised, sometimes for good reason, for a poor safety record. It is true that this industry has not had the level of investment that mainline construction enjoys and there is internal, and client led pressure to deliver cost effective practices that can sometimes slow safety improvement and at worst negatively impact it.

To quantify the safety performance of the geotechnical & geoenvironmental industry and provide a benchmark from which to measure improvement, the Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists (AGS) requested all members to volunteer accident data for the past two years as part of the annual members survey. From the members, an above statistical threshold (twenty-one) of twenty-seven organisations provided data.

How do the two industries compare?

Applying Health and Safety Executive (HSE) frequency and incident rate formulas to allow benchmarking against the HSE published Construction Statistics in Great Britain 2022, a direct industry comparison can be made.

From the HSE data, a construction workforce headcount of 2,048,611 can be identified, and a 2022 construction industry Accident Incident Rate (AIR) of 239.28, (35 fatalities + 4,185 non-fatal accidents / workforce) x 100,000 = 239.28.

In comparison the geotechnical & geoenvironmental industry (from the data provided) has an AIR of 31.28 in 2022 and 81.63 in 2021. On face value, an AIR seven times lower than the construction industry could be celebrated, however the wider picture needs to be examined before the bunting comes out.

While some activities within the geotechnical & geoenvironmental industry are high risk, such as the person plant interface during drilling activities and underground utilities, the exposure to many additional high-risk construction hazards are limited, such as working from height, confined spaces, lifting activities, etc. Therefore, a like for like comparison with construction provides little value, as the risk profiles differ vastly. Yes, drilling is a hazardous operation, but it is only one element of the geotechnical & geoenvironmental industry, and yes, the construction industry does consist of many low risk tasks, but these are surrounded by other high risk activities.

What can the data tell us?

The real value within the data can be seen when we start to look at how different size organisations compare to each other and by setting a benchmark for subsequent years incident data to be measured against.

Before looking at the incident data by organisation size, it can be assumed that small organisations have less incident reporting processes than larger organisations, as it is not needed, organisational leaders have line of sight of the incidents and can document them. Likewise, it is less likely for a small organisation to formally record hazardous events, as they are seen first-hand, and these is a much smaller group to share information with, word of mouth is sufficient.

Likewise larger organisations have tried and tested systems, with dedicated safety professionals, supported by supervisors and managers to ensure that all incidents are reported, and hazardous events recorded, with learning shared across the workforce.

The organisations which can sometimes be weaker in incident reporting, incident management and incident learning are the medium size organisations. This is dependent on the time they have been operating in this space and particularly affects small organisations which have experienced rapid growth, with little time to implement improvements in their incident management and learning.

Within organisations with smaller headcounts a single RIDDOR reportable accident can have a significant impact on their AIR. As an example, organisations within the medium contractor group, with a combined head count of 594 has recorded one accident, resulted in an AIR in 2022 of 168.35. Compare this with a single accident recorded by large organisations in the same year produces an AIR of 67.29. To produce benchmarkable AIR targets an average is required across a longer sample period, as our group size is relatively small.

The above chart details the average AIR across two years for each organisation size, which is a better demonstration of the performance of the different size organisations, together with an overall industry average. This allows comparison against similar organisational performance and future safety improvement within the industry as a whole.

When examining the small and medium contractor accident data, 39% of organisations did not record any accident, near misses or hazard events over the two-year period, highlighting a poor reporting culture and indicating a potential higher AIR than 0.00 for small and an increased rate for the medium contractors than is shown.

The Accident Frequency Rate ((AFR) total injuries / hours worked x 1,000,000)) provides a better indication of overall safety performance, as the rate is inclusive of minor injuries as well as RIDDOR reportable, which can sometimes be under reported.

Like the AIR, with 39% of small and medium contractors recording no accident data, the AFR for small and medium sized contractors could be significantly higher than detailed. This is a clear area of improvement for the industry, both in improving accident reporting and record keeping by the small and medium sized organisations and targeting these small sized organisations to develop safer working practices which will reduce harm.

The AFR across all organisations remains relatively close within 2022, ranging from 6.23 to 41.58 and an overall geotechnical & geoenvironmental industry AFR of 21.56. This provides a useful benchmark for the industry and individual organisations to measure their performance against.

Going further, to look at industry accident and incident reporting culture, the data needs to be compared with a suitable reporting frequency model. The original “accident pyramid” published by Herbert Heinrich in 1931 found that in a grouping of 330 similar accidents, one will result in serious injury (fatality, disability, lost time, medical treatment), 29 will result in minor injury (first aid), and 300 will result in no injury. Comparing industry data to an accident frequency model like this provides awareness of industry culture, as the model has been tried and tested, it is relevant. But is there a better model to use?

Looking at more recent studies there are two which go further. In 1969, Frank E. Bird conducted a follow-up study using a larger, more-randomized sample size (1,753,498 accidents). Bird found a ratio of one serious injury for every 10 minor injuries, 30 property-damage accidents, and 600 near-miss safety incidents. Due to the rigor of the study, this 1-10-30-600 ratio was accepted as an archetypal ratio in occupational health and safety.

The most recent major study of the safety ratio was undertaken by ConocoPhilips Marine in 2003. It placed the Safety Triangle within a modern occupational context and found that for every single fatality there are at least 30 lost workday cases, 300 minor injuries, 3,000 near misses (estimated), and 300,000 behaviours not consistent with proper safety procedures (estimated). Aligned to the advancements in safety delivery from 1969 up to 2003, this model is more suited to today’s standards.

From this comparison several statistical features can be observed.

Firstly, looking at the relationship between lost time injuries and fatalities it can be suggested that every 7.5 years a person working in the industry will lose their life to a workplace accident. Although not measurable over a single time period, over 37.5 years the average of 1 fatality every 7.5 years would be correct, providing there is no changes to the current working practices, and no course change between now and 2060.

The relationship between minor accident and lost time accident reporting rates statistically holds up to the ConocoPhilips Marine triangle. As these are harm accidents, it is common for these to be the most robustly reported, as following first aid administration, the first aider has a duty to report.

Looking down the triangle from minor injuries, there are clear industry weaknesses within near miss and hazard reporting. The current industry near miss reporting rate is showing an under-reporting value of 39%, highlighting a need for improvement.

Focusing on hazard reporting, 57% of the contractors stated that as an organisation they did not record hazard events and this shows, although not to a sufficient level to bring the hazard report rate in line with our accident triangle model. If the 57% reported hazardous events and at risk behaviours at the same rate as those in the industry that do, a total value of 11,924 reports would be made against a target rate of 80,000. Ignoring such an uplift, the industry hazardous event reporting rate is at a dismal 5.6% against the statistical target.

Both near miss and hazard reporting are proactive tool which can be used to prevent accidents from occurring. An improvement across both near miss and hazardous event reporting, learning and communication of the learning, would significantly reduce the amount of people harmed because of working within the geotechnical & geoenvironmental industry.

While we can not benchmark our industry accident data against the construction industry effectively, what we can do is learn from those that have walked the well-trodden path before us, in this case the drive within the construction industry to promote the importance of near miss and hazardous event learning to prevent harm.

If the organisations within our industry invest in putting in systems to capture, learn from and communicate our near miss and hazardous event learning, as an industry we can drive down the industry accident rates and improve prevention. Ultimately, we can delay, with the desire to prevent, the once in a seven and half year fatality to our workforces, colleagues, and friends.

Author Note: The sharing of accident data by AGS members has allowed the collective data to be examined to identify what, as an industry, we should be focusing on to reduce harm to our members. Please continue to share this information as it is requested each year, so we track the progress of our industry and focus our efforts within the areas which will have the most impact.

Article provided by Jon Rayner, AGS Safety Working Group Leader

Article

Loss Prevention Guidance: What You Don’t Realise You Need To Know (2022 Updates) webinar summary

- by
Tags: Featured

To promote the publication of the AGS Loss Prevention Guidance 2022, the AGS held a free to attend webinar on 22nd February entitled, Loss Prevention Guidance: What You Don’t Realise You Need To Know (2022 Updates). The webinar was chaired by Jo Strange (Technical Director at CGL) and included presentations from Dr Russell Jones (Commercial Director at WSP UK), Hugh Mallett (Technical Director at Buro Happold), Neil Parry (Director at Geotechnical Engineering) and Antonio Rotolo (Regional Counsel, AECOM Europe).

Russell Jones provided a talk highlighting indemnity issues, Hugh Mallett discussed reliance on third party reports and the possible liabilities associated when you use or rely upon information provided by a third party’s report. Neil Parry gave an overview of the current market conditions that affect PI premiums, and the issues which a consultant or contractor undertaking professional services should consider when procuring PI insurance. Finally, Antonio Rotolo discussed limit on liability clauses.

Thank you to Geotechnical Engineering for sponsoring the webinar.

If you missed the webinar, the replay and all speaker presentations are available for free view on the AGS website. Click HERE to view the replay.

Article

AGS Annual Conference 2023 – Overview

- by
Tags: Featured

The AGS Annual Conference returned to the Barbican Centre, London on 27th April 2023 with just shy of 200 delegates in attendance.

Chaired by AGS Chair, Sally Hudson and AGS Chair Elect Vivien Dent, the event featured six guest speakers covering a range of geotechnical and geoenvironmental topics, alongside the AGS Working Group Leaders who provided updates on activities and focuses from the past 12 months.

Keynote speaker, Nick Sartain (Head of Geotechnical Engineering, HS2), started the proceedings with an informative presentation outlining what is necessary for excellent communication of digital information. This was followed by Luke Deamer (Group Sustainabiltiy Manager, Keller) who provided the forum with information on the wider opportunities of sustainability to geotechnical companies. AGS Chair Elect, Vivien Dent (Technical Specialist: Green Growth and Delivery, Environment Agency) also took to the stage to give an update on Environment Agency issues, projects and guidance.

After a busy lunch of networking with industry colleagues and the 17 event sponsors, Joel Carson (CEO Executive Director, Geoprofessional Business Association), who had travelled from USA to attend the Annual Conference, presented on how the industry can learn from other people’s mistakes. This was followed by Chaido Doulala-Rigby (Chief Civil Engineer and Business Development, Tensar International) who gave a brief historic review from the origin of stabilised earth concept to today’s use of polymer geogrids in construction. Finally, guest speaker, Edd Lewis (Data Standards Lead, British Geological Survey) gave an interactive presentation on Subsurface Data Sharing and The Geospatial Commission’s Construction Playbook.

It was a great event and a brilliant opportunity for the industry to gather, network and exchange ideas.

The AGS would like to take this opportunity to thank of our speakers, sponsors and exhibitors including Soil Engineering, Geosense, Geotechnical Engineering, In Situ Site Investigation, Seequent, SOCOTEC, Groundsure, Dunelm Geotechnical & Environmental, Equipe, BAM Ritchies, Concept Consultants, AFITEXINOV UK, Envirolab, British Geological Survey, Fugro, Brimstone and 1st Line Defence.

If you missed the AGS Annual Conference 2023, you can download the majority of the speaker presentations HERE.

Article Loss Prevention

Cyber Insurance

- by
Tags: Featured

The sophistication, frequency and severity of cyber losses are growing. As the economy has increased its dependency upon technology, exposure to Cyber losses has surged. As hybrid working has become the new normal, and with an over reliance on an ever integrated global supply chain, the attack surface for criminal activity has expanded. These foundational changes to the way we work has further increased organisational exposure to growing systemic risks. Threat actors are using these expanded threat surfaces, and new tactics, to expand their scope to cause harm.

Ransomware events also continue to grow significantly and remain a worry for both clients and insurers alike. A recent insurer report found that ransomware events have increased dramatically in recent months, up 323% from Q1 2019.

This raises the question of how businesses are dealing with their cyber risk. Historically, businesses have chosen to manage their exposures by investing in their IT systems to defend against cyber-attacks, as well as focusing on the education and training of staff against cyber threats. Alongside this, businesses may have relied on the expectation that their existing insurance policies provided some element of cover for their cyber exposures, however regulatory changes over recent years have meant that insureds have needed to reconsider this approach.

Regulatory changes

In 2019, the Prudential Regulatory Authority (PRA) advised all UK insurers that they must have “action plans to reduce the unintended exposure that can be caused by non-affirmative cyber cover”. Lloyd’s also advised that all policies must be clear on whether coverage is provided for losses caused by a cyber event. The intention was to eliminate silent cyber exposure and with it the doubt and uncertainty that existed around coverage. As a result of this, Insurers must now explicitly exclude cyber exposure where appropriate, or affirmatively cover it.

What we have seen over the last few years is insurance policies being re-drafted to accurately describe what cyber cover (if any) they will provide. For example, where historically some protection may have been afforded under widely worded Professional Indemnity insurance policies, cyber exposure is now routinely excluded by insurers.

Due to the regulatory changes and as a result of the increasing reliance on technology to conduct business today, we have seen an uptake in the demand for standalone cyber policies. There are various products available in the market that will provide appropriately tailored and value for money cover for those firms that wish to understand, address and where appropriate transfer their specific exposures via an insurance solution.

Cyber Policies

Cyber insurance is designed to protect businesses against financial loss resulting from a range of cyber events, including extortion, data breaches, and system interruption. Cyber insurance is of growing importance because as businesses increasingly use technology to operate, the digital assets they hold are becoming more valuable and therefore more vulnerable.

Cyber policies are generally split into three categories: first-party losses; cover for incident response costs; and third-party losses. First-party and incident response cover provides an indemnity to the insured and includes cover for the cost of investigating a cyber attack, appointing forensic IT services to identify and remedy breaches, recovering lost data and restoring computer systems. Third-party cover includes cover for damages and settlements that result from the insured being blamed for causing another firm’s cyber losses and the cost of legally defending the insured against claims of a data breach.

If this area has not yet been considered, we would recommend any business assesses its cyber risk and if appropriate makes enquiries into stand-alone cyber cover. As the world becomes increasingly more reliant on the use of information technology to conduct business, it is more important now than ever to ensure that a firm’s assets, and those of its customers, are adequately protected. For further details see: Cyber Insurance – Griffiths and Armour.

Griffiths & Armour is a leading independent and privately owned UK insurance broker and risk management adviser. If you have any queries regarding cyber insurance or any questions in relation to this article, then please do not hesitate to get in touch.

Article provided by:
Sarah McNeill
Client Services Director
Griffiths & Armour Professional Risks
0151 600 2071

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

News

AGS Magazine: March 2023

- by
Tags: Featured

The Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists is pleased to announce the March 2023 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 Annual Conference 2023 – Page 8
A refresher on clean cover systems – Page 12
Net Zero – The Use of Timber Piles – Page 16
Coal Tar: Analysis and Detection – Page 20
COP27 and a ‘Way Forward’ – Page 24
Inside: Jacobs – with Solenn Le Pense, Senior Geo-digital Engineer at Jacobs – Page 26
Plus much, much more!

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

Inside Jacobs

- by
Tags: Featured

Name: Solenn Le Pense

Job title: Senior Geo-digital Engineer

Company name: Jacobs

What does the company do and what areas does it specialise in?

Jacobs is a technology-enabled global solutions provider serving several markets. We provide a full spectrum of professional services including consulting, technical, scientific and project delivery for the government and private sector. Our tunnel and ground engineering team manages ground risks and geohazards on some of the most challenging projects globally.

Where is Jacobs located?

We operate from over 40 countries and 400 offices globally. We have a network of 30+ offices throughout the UK and 22 offices across continental Europe.

How many people does the company employ?

We have more than 55,000 people globally, about a fifth of whom are working from UK and Europe. Our tunnel and ground engineering team includes around 800 employees globally.

How long have you worked at Jacobs?

I have worked at Jacobs for over two years, since March 2020

What is your career background, and what enticed you to work for Jacobs?

I started my career in academic research, with a PhD in geotechnical engineering that I obtained in France. My PhD included a fair amount of code and software development, for application to the mathematical and numerical modelling of soils. Pushed by curiosity, broad interests and a willingness to travel, I moved away from geotechnical engineering for a while, and moved to the UK to join Heriot-Watt University (Edinburgh) as a Research Associate. I was part of a research project in computational biomechanics, looking at how bone porous microstructure influences its mechanical behaviour (bone looks very much like a highly porous rock!), using finite element analysis software. I then decided to try out work outside of academia and joined a small start-up whose aim was to develop a novel airborne wind energy system that generates electricity by autonomously flying a tethered aircraft. I worked there for almost three years, and was responsible for developing modelling and analysis tools, including a flight simulator. The project was very stimulating and the team very motivated, and I did learn a lot about programming and software development (as well as aerodynamics, which was a bit outside my core area of expertise to start with!). When looking for my next job, I was then looking for a bit more stability, as well as a larger company where I could be surrounded by a lot of experienced colleagues (having found that was a limitation in a-20 people company). So, when I saw Jacobs advertising for a geo-digital engineer position, I thought it was the perfect opportunity to reconnect with my original geotechnical background, while further developing my recently developed skills and interest in programming and software development. The good reputation of Jacobs, well-known within the industry, as well as its large and experienced tunnel and ground engineering team, gave me the confidence that it would allow me to keep learning and grow as an engineer, while working on important and exciting projects.

What is your current role within Jacobs and what does a typical day entail?

I am currently a senior geo-digital engineer, part of the tunnel and ground engineering team, and am based in Glasgow. The role is very varied, and I really enjoy the diversity of tasks and projects I get to work on. Part of the role can include some traditional geotechnical engineering tasks, such as geotechnical data management and analysis, or design of geotechnical structures. Some of my core responsibilities are a bit less traditional and revolve around developing and programming design automation tools for geoscience and engineering applications. That does include a lot of programming (mainly in Python, but also C#) and software development processes. We are a team of programmers with engineering knowledge, and we can work together, or more individually depending on the size of the project. As a cross-market discipline we get to work on projects in multiple areas, such as transportation, water or energy, which makes the job varied and interesting.

What are the company’s core values?

As a company, we have four key values: we do things right, we challenge the accepted, we aim higher, and we live inclusion. We try to reflect this in our everyday work, both with clients and with each other.  Our values allow us to act as one company and unify us worldwide when interacting with our clients, employees, communities and shareholders.

Are there any projects or achievements which Jacobs are particularly proud to have been a part of?

We are very proud of the sustainable solutions we co-create with clients and other organizations. We look at ways to make a positive environmental, societal and economic difference for our people, businesses, governments and communities around the world. Some of our major programmes include the London 2012 Olympics and Paralympic Games, Thames Tideway and TEAM2100, where we have provided sustainable infrastructure and help leave a legacy for future generations, clean our water and environment, or protect our coastlines and communities. There are of course many other projects where we live our purpose of providing a smarter, more connected and more sustainable world.

How important is sustainability within the company?

Sustainability is at the core of our business, and for us it means developing long-term business resilience and success, and positively contributing toward the global economy, society and the environment. It is not simply about avoiding harm, but about maximizing impact and stakeholder value, and striving to deliver a positive, fair and inclusive future for all in partnership with our clients. Our approach to sustainability is embodied by our PlanBeyondSM programme, which is our approach to integrating sustainability throughout our operations and client solutions in alignment with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

How does Jacobs support graduates and early career professionals who are entering the industry?

We invest in our graduates and early career professionals. Our Graduate Development Programme (GDP) takes our graduates through a 2-year programme of mentoring, skill building and networking to help build their careers; and professional accreditation schemes supporting staff through their chartership journeys. More widely, we implement apprenticeships to help early professionals obtain an academic qualification while working with us; drive STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts and mathematics) engagement and leadership throughout the business, including our own Butterfly Effect programme, which is driving sustainability in decision-making for young pupils.

How has COVID-19 impacted Jacobs today? Are there any policies which were made during the pandemic that have been kept to improve employee wellbeing and productivity?

Covid-19 has been a game changer for us as an industry. For one, we’ll never go back to see the same level of travel as before as people have adjusted to hybrid working and adopted technology to collaborate and deliver work. Employee wellbeing is of course at the heart of our business decisions, including raising awareness of mental health challenges, especially in a world where perhaps we don’t see our colleagues as often and regularly as we used to. An example of the work Jacobs has done in this space is the roll out of our One Million Lives web app. The free mental health check-in tool was created to help enhance users’ understanding of their current state of mind and provide proactive strategies for personal mental health development.

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

The AGS Data Format has been around for over 30 years, has become the industry standard and, in our experience, increasingly used for every project regardless of size or complexity. Comparison with other civil engineering disciplines allows us to see the benefit that this standard format provides, as our colleagues often lack an equivalent, vendor agnostic format. AGS data helps us to work with a data-orientated approach from the beginning of our projects and fits well with the BIM environment that has become more recently familiar. The AGS fulfil an important role in continuing to manage and evolve this format to suit the everchanging needs of our industry.

What are Jacobs’ future ambitions?

As a purpose-led company, Jacobs is passionate about leaving a positive legacy for generations to come. We are channelling our technology-enabled expertise and capabilities toward benefiting people and the planet, working closely with our clients to build a more sustainable, equitable future in the context of global environmental, social, and economic challenges. Launched this year, our 2022-2024 Boldly Moving Forward strategy responds to this and is built around three key accelerators, which we see at the heart of tomorrow’ solutions: climate response, consulting and advisory, and data solutions.

Article Contaminated Land

A refresher on clean cover systems

- by
Tags: Featured

Image credit to Andrew Tranter, Principal Environmental Consultant at RSK

Clean cover systems are one of the most commonly applied remediation techniques deployed by developers within the UK.  They are used to reduce the risk of exposure to soils potentially harmful to health and or to reduce contaminant mobilisation by presenting a low permeability barrier to infiltration.  Consequently, they can provide both a viable and sustainable solution for mitigating risks. Yet over-familiarity is increasingly leading to poor implementation.  A refreshment and reminder on the existing guidance, the advantages, and disadvantages, as well as design considerations of cover systems, are consequently presented below.

A cover system is composed of a single or multiple layers of ‘clean’ materials which are placed above soils that are considered to be potentially harmful to a particular receptor, typically site users on a development site.  Their main purpose is usually to remove or reduce the pathway in the source-pathway-receptor conceptual model. However, one or more layers can, as already noted, have other uses, for instance,  concerning landfills, a cover or capping layer may also be used to limit surface water infiltration.

Technical guidance on the use of cover systems as a remedial technique was first included within CIRIA special publication 104, ‘Remediation Treatment for Contaminated Land Volume IV’ published in 1995, and CIRIA special publication SP124, ‘Barrier lines and cover systems for containment and control of contaminated land’ published in 1996.  However, the use of this technique for the restoration of landfills or mineral extraction sites predated any specific contaminated land guidance.  Both of these CIRIA guidance documents outlined some of the factors that should be considered when designing an engineered cover system, for example, the selection of appropriate materials to guard against the upward movement of contaminants through anthropogenic activities, burrowing animals, and capillary action.  However, there was no actual guidance given on the appropriate thickness of the cover layer to be required. This was left to the discretion of the designer , increasing the risk of an inconsistent approach between sites and geographies arising.

The British Research Establishment (BRE) subsequently published guidance document BRE465 in 2004. This sought to provide some consistency in the approach to designing cover systems.  The document divided cover systems into two distinct types; an engineered covered layer designed to completely break the pathway between the contaminated soils and receptor (as discussed in the CIRIA guidance), and a simple cover layer that reduces the exposure to a receptor.  The detail of this BRE guidance was, however, only to focus its content on simple cover system design.

A key question considered within this BRE guidance was to be the level of intermixing between soil layers that could be considered to arise within a domestic setting. The research was to state that disturbance from anthropogenic activities (digging) and intermixing due to natural processes, such as burrowing animals, earthworm activity, and plant roots, was unlikely to exceed 600mm.

Based on these findings, this guidance contained a method for calculating the thickness of the cover, which used 600mm to be the default mixing zone.   For a given contaminant of concern (COC), the BRE equation determined how much cover would be required to reduce the concentrations to a pre-determined target concentration/assessment criterion.  As a conservative approach, the equation considered that all mixing would occur uniformly across the whole of the mixing zone, but in reality, disturbance (impacted soils being brought to the surface) was likely to be localised.   Finally, the maximum depth of the cover was set at 600mm, but this could be altered if there was reasonable justification.

An Excel spreadsheet was provided with the BRE guidance and a simple check graph enabled the user to determine whether a simple cover system was appropriate.  If the concentration of the COC was too high, then this would be highlighted by the graph.  Advice against the deployment of a simple cover system was also made under conditions where:

  • Non-threshold contaminants (i.e. those that may pose a risk at any concentration, such as asbestos) were present,
  • other contaminant pathways were present, such as the inhalation of vapours/gas, direct contact with rising groundwater, etc.,
  • if there was a risk to groundwater and the need to reduce leachability,
  • where sloping ground was present i.e. where a consistent thickness of cover could not be maintained, and
  • where in areas deeper excavations were required for ponds, tree planting, fencing, etc.

BRE465 remains to be a commonly applied reference.  The NHBC published a technical extra (issue 8) in 2012 on the ‘verification of clean cover system-testing of subsoil and topsoil’.  This document has clearly stated that the topsoil should meet British Standard 3882:2007 and has provided details of how many plots on a residential development should be validated.  The current NHBC technical standards (2022) Chapter 10.2 (Drives, Paths and Landscapes) further positions that:

  • Works should be carried out following a formal remediation statement,
  • Topsoil and subsoil should be of a quality that does not pose a hazard to users,
  • Old foundations, concrete bases and similar obstructions should be removed from 450mm of finished ground level,
  • Appropriate action should be undertaken to restore the physical conditions and drainage characteristics of topsoil and subsoil that has been compacted during construction,
  • A minimum thickness of 100mm topsoil is required.

A key message is that even if the NHBC is not involved with a development, it is now considered as ‘ordinary care’, as their guidance is followed when designing and validating a cover system as a matter of normal practice.

Of further note then with familiarity, it has almost become standard to apply a 600mm clean cover system. Sometimes, but not always, this is underlain by a marker layer in private gardens.   The presence or absence of a marker layer should always be clearly and explicitly described in the remedial strategy. Such reasoning is too often absent or simply inferred.  Next in regards to 600mm this may indeed be adequate to reduce the risk to an acceptable level, however, there is again often little or no justification to the design.   Indeed this depth is based on the mixing zone from the BRE guidance, but the purpose of the guidance was not to set a definitive depth for a cover system.  Assessment criteria derived using the Environment Agency’s contaminated land exposure assessment (CLEA) model takes into account exposure to site users within the top 1 metre of soil. Also, if a landscaped area is planted with trees then the roots will extend beyond a metre depth.  The depth of the cover system should always be based on its specific setting.    In summary, the thickness of a cover layer should again always be clearly and implicitly described in the remedial strategy. Such reasoning is once again too often absent.

Overall,  the advantages of specifying a clean cover system are that it can negate the requirement for the removal of a contamination source; is generally straightforward for a groundworker to implement, and is widely accepted by a Local Authority.  The disadvantages are that to often to little consideration is given to the appropriate design of cover systems. Furthermore; where ground levels cannot be raised, the soils is excavated and removed to accommodate the cover system. The removed soil can either be disposed of off site or reused in accordance with a Materials Management Plan (MMP). Other risk assessment or remedial measures may be able to reduce the quantity of soil requiring replacement and /or disposal. Indeed, the need on occasion of some cover systems can be avoided if a detailed risk assessment is carried out.

In conclusion, the use of a cover system can be a very reasonable and cost-effective remedial solution to use, as long as they are documented, designed then implemented with thought and critical thinking.  However, the technique is so widely used that with over-familiarity it is perhaps sometimes abused.  It may be that as consultants contractors and developers we should take the opportunity to reflect and remind ourselves that we must ensure that a consistent and critical approach is applied. Lastly, let’s never forget to validate!

The National Contaminated Land Officers Group (NCLOG) cover systems subgroup are currently working on a new guidance document, so please keep a look out.

Table 1. Cover systems at a glance

What is a cover system?
Cover systems fall into two categories: firstly, a simple cover layer is typically composed of  one or two layers (topsoil/subsoil) of ‘clean’ material that reduces the exposure to potentially harmful substance(s) in the strata it is placed over.

Secondly, an engineered cover system comprises one or multiple layers which prevent contact within the underlying soils.  Each layer may be designed for a specific purpose such as reducing infiltration, capillary break, no-dig later, etc.

Design considerations (examples)
1)     Purpose of the cover system (simple or engineered)
2)     Topography of the site
3)     Landscaping details
4)     Suitability of the cover soils
5)     Drainage/groundwater
6)     Depth of cover
7)     Sustainability (removal of soils for off-site disposal)

Article provided by Andrew Tranter, Principal Environmental Consultant at RSK

Article

AGS Photography Competition 2023 – photos for AGS stands and extended deadline

- by
Tags: Featured

The AGS is holding a new photography competition for 2023!

We’re on the lookout for your most creative images which are reflective of the geotechnical and geoenvironmental industry.

The winning photos may be used to update the AGS stands, which are used at events and conferences, and across our marketing materials.

If you’re a budding photographer or have a great engineering image which you’d like to enter, then we’d like to see it!

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 as long as the below criteria are met.

All entries will be reviewed by select members of the AGS, who will decide on a shortlist and a potential winner. Full details will be announced in the November issue.

IMAGE REQUIREMENTS

The AGS are looking for high resolution JPEG images (300 DPI / over 1MB image file size) of a geotechnical and geoenvironmental nature. Images can include project imagery, laboratory testing, collaborative working and more. Photographs featuring any on-site operatives should showcase health and safety procedures in place, if appropriate. Images should be no smaller than 4200 x 3400 pixels.

HOW TO ENTER
• Please email your image with;

  • A short description of what it showcases and where it was taken (up to 50 words)
  • Image credit information (if applicable)
  • Your full name
  • Company name
  • Postal address

to ags@ags.org.uk with the subject ‘AGS Magazine: Photography Competition 2023’ in the email.

  • There is no limit to the number of images you enter.
  • The deadline for entries has been extended to 25th August 2023.
  • 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 and appropriate permissions from all involved parties, for all images submitted.
• 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.