|
||
|
 |
          |
 |
 |
|
|
Civils'98, which will be held at the NEC Birmingham between 19th and 21st May, will be the first exhibition dedicated to the UK Civil Engineering profession. The AGS will be there promoting our members in the geotechnical and geoenvironmental industries together with our recent publications. In addition to our stand we will be holding a seminar to launch the latest version of the AGS Electronic Format Data Transfer. We ask all our members to support the exhibition and visit your own stand at the NEC. Review of the Operation and Level of Landfill Tax Following recent feedback from members, Roger Clark of the AGS Geoenvironmental Working Group has submitted a letter to the Customs and Excise regarding the Landfill Tax. The response is also made on behalf of the CIC and the Ground Forum. Has the tax encouraged a reduction in the amounts of waste going to landfill? Landfill operators have reported a reduction in the amounts of inert and contaminated land derived wastes going to landfill. Evidence from members indicates an increase in the amounts of waste going to sites that do not require a waste management licence (exempt sites). Also, considerably more emphasis is going into retaining inert materials and low level contaminated soils on the sites at which they are derived. The stated purpose of the tax is to reduce the amount of waste being taken to landfill. However, our members report cases where this objective has been frustrated by the Environment Agency. An example is where schemes have been redesigned in order to reduce the amount of material removed from the site. Planning Permission has been granted for the revised schemes but the Environment Agency have still tried to claim that the operations constitute landfilling, even though in some cases the materials are inert, and hence are subject to both waste management licensing and tax. In one case Counsel's opinion was sought and the Environment Agency's objection was withdrawn as a consequence. There must be an established principle that schemes can be redesigned in order to retain surplus materials on site provided that this does not pose a risk to humans or the environment. Some of the tax revenues generated by the landfill tax should be used to "police" the illegal disposal of waste by means of fly tipping and the deposit on exempt sites. There is confusion with regard to the meaning of 'exempt'. In this contribution (see above) it is being used to mean exempt from needing a waste management licence. However, the word is also used to mean exempt from tax. It would be far better to refer to 'zero rating' in respect of the tax. What effect has the tax had on the use of demolition or construction waste? Evidence from the projects in which our members are involved indicates that there has been an increased effort to reduce the amount of inert and low level contaminated soils derived from construction projects as well as demolition materials. As stated above, these materials are either being retained on site or sent to non-licensed projects. However, disagreements are still arising on what constitutes waste. If the originator does not intend to discard the materials then they are not waste. This should be the case for soils or other excavated materials that are retained on site. With regard to crushed concrete, hardcore etc, these materials were already used for construction purposes before the introduction of the landfill tax. However, it seems likely that the tax has resulted in an increase in the use of this material elsewhere rather than being taken to landfill. A consequence of the reduction in construction waste going to landfill has undoubtedly been a shortage of intermediate and final cover materials at landfills and for construction of site roads. Instead materials that have another use have had to be purchased. In many cases these other materials constitute a higher quality resource than the construction wastes that they replace. Is the current scope of the tax appropriate or should it include other deposits of waste presently exempt from environmental licensing? There needs to be a continuing strong link between the landfill tax and waste management licensing, such that only waste disposal that requires a licence is subject to tax. Otherwise it becomes virtually impossible to 'police'. Further clear guidance is needed in respect of what constitutes waste in relation to low risk contaminated land and inert excavated spoil. Tax should not be paid on site derived materials that can legitimately be used for alternative beneficial purposes. All forms of waste disposal that require a waste management licence and not just landfill should be subject to tax, otherwise there is no balanced incentive for waste minimisation and the prime objective of the tax is prejudiced. All forms of waste disposal pose some environmental risk. Are the exemptions for dredgings and mines and quarry waste consistent with environmental objectives? Whether these materials should be subject to tax depends on where they are placed. For example quarry wastes used to enable site restoration are environmentally beneficial and their use in this way should not be discouraged by levying a tax. Likewise dredgings should only be taxed if they have no beneficial use. Are there other categories of waste that should be exempt from the tax? One category of waste that should be exempt is that used for intermediate and final cover on landfills and that used for construction of a landfill including site roads. This material should not be classified as waste. It has a use. Otherwise this material is instead being taken to non licensed sites and has to be replaced by better quality material that could be used elsewhere. It is considered that there are satisfactory methods available of quantifying the volume of material used for engineering any particular landfill area. Has the exemption for wastes arising from the clearance of contaminated land achieved its objective of ensuring that the tax does not act as a disincentive to reclamation? How could the administration of the exemption be simplified? In general this objective is being achieved, once the criteria for exemption are understood and agreed for a particular site. However, as stated above there is still a need for clarification of the criteria for retaining materials on site which is more a matter for the Environmental Agency than HM Customs and Excise. However, one problem that arises is where the levels of contamination on a particular site fall below those that would normally require remediation but the organisations who would provide the financial backing for the development will only do so if all risk from contamination is removed. Hence, in order to obtain funding the soils have to be removed and will be subject to tax. This is a relatively common situation and the additional financial burden of the tax could result in the development not proceeding. Various members report that problems have been encountered due to the different definitions of "contamination" as applied by the Environment Agency and HM Customs and Excise. Cases have arisen where the Environment Agency deem certain contamination to be liable to cause harm and hence has to be removed but HM Customs and Excise say there is no potential to cause harm and therefore no exemption from tax. In some cases it has only been possible to resolve this by the carrying out of a risk assessment. Certain individuals and organisations have argued that material derived from contaminated land should be taxed because otherwise there is no incentive to promote alternative remediation technologies. The counter to this argument is that at present these alternative technologies are not sufficiently advanced to be used in many cases or are uneconomic and/or not accepted by funding organisations although undoubtedly some are, e.g. bioremediation. Also landfill charges are rising and are likely to continue rising so that there is already an increasing incentive to pursue alternative technologies. Making the cost of remediating contaminated sites too high too soon by forcing the use of expensive alternative technologies will result in less contaminated land being treated. Is there a case for the rates of landfill tax to be changed? If so then by how much and what would be the implications for landfill operators compliance costs and cash flow? How much notice of any change would be necessary or desirable? The tax should remain at the same levels for at least another 12 months to enable the system to be fully established. For example, at present, because of uncertainties as to whether tax will be payable or not, many contaminated land remediation contracts are being delayed because of the reluctance on the part of contractors to bid due to uncertainties as to what the tax liability will be. If any future increase is made in the level of landfill tax then this increase should be used to fund more research in landfill technology so that environmental protection can be further improved. Changes in rates need to be announced well in advance of implementation, minimum 6 months ideally 12 months, in order to account for the lead time on many contracts. Are two rates of tax sufficient to distinguish different waste streams? Are the categories of waste eligible for the lower rate of tax appropriate? A possible separate rate for special waste could be considered. This could reasonably be administered because special wastes are already treated separately under waste management licensing and there are established criteria for determining what is special waste. To have more than three rates (including special waste) of tax (four, if those which are zero rated are included) would make the system more complicated and this is not desirable. As a follow on from the above, it is considered that the criteria for determining whether particular wastes are inactive and hence eligible for the lower rate of tax are not sufficiently clarified. Do special schemes for calculating the weight of waste disposed to landfill, including those for the discounting of water, ensure sufficiently accurate tax declarations? Are they fair and consistent with the objectives of the tax? It is acknowledged that variations in rainfall can result in heavier wastes being produced in certain parts of the country. However, it is considered that any schemes to calculate the weight of water included within wastes adds complication to a system that should be kept as straight forward as possible. In any case the water adds to the leachate and hence the pollution load. There is presently too much discrepancy between those landfill operators who use weighbridges to determine tax liabilities and those who use the calculation method. Instead all landfills should be required to install weighbridges. How successful has the environmental bodies credit scheme been in encouraging donations to environmental projects? Can the scheme be improved? After an initial slow uptake in this option, landfill operators appear to be moving more towards making their contributions and hence the scheme appears to be working better. There needs to be more publicity of the schemes that are funded by this method. Also consideration should be given to including some projects that are of direct benefit to the landfill industry such as funding more research into landfill technology. There are rumours that there could be changes to the system. We recommend that the system be given at least another 2 years in its present form in order to prove, or otherwise, its effectiveness. AGS members are encouraged to continue to provide details of their experiences with the Landfill Tax to the Administrator. Contributions may be reprinted in forthcoming newsletters with the member's permission. The Education Time Bomb for Engineering Geology On the 4th November 1997 Michael de Freitas presented a short talk to the main committee of the AGS on the foreseeable difficulties the MSc courses in Engineering Geology may encounter. This article reviews his opinions and concerns. Engineering geology is essentially concerned with discovering the structure and composition of the ground and understanding " how the ground works". It is an essential component of soil and rock mechanics whose concern is "how to work with the ground". There is an obvious and necessary overlap between all three but their essential difference is the thing of value. Without engineering geology soil and rock mechanics cannot be practiced with adequate regard to ground conditions. The growing competitive pressures on the geotechnical industry in the UK therefore make it ever more necessary to secure the supply of competent engineering geologists. Is this supply secure? The two major sources of new recruits are undergraduate and postgraduate courses. Students on undergraduate courses essentially learn "about" their subject and it is not until they enter a postgraduate course that most learn how to use this knowledge in a professional manner. As any reader who is also a parent will know, it is very expensive to send a son or daughter through college. Many students leave college with personal debts of between Pounds 1.5k and Pounds 2k. The present ratio of likely starting salary to typical debt is about 5 or 6 to 1. When four year undergraduate courses become the fashion at the established universities the personal debts will be even larger. When the recommendations of the Dearing Report are enacted these debts are likely to increase to just under Pounds 5.5k for a three year course and to Pounds 7.8k for a four year course. The ratio of likely starting salary to debt then becomes 2 or 3 to 1. This is a substantial rise and sufficient to dissuade graduates from a further year of study at MSc level. This tendency is already apparent; the number of applications for places on MSc courses is approximately half that of 10 years ago. MSc courses will not last for long if they are starved of applicants. Once gone the alternatives open to employers are short courses, part-time modular courses and in house training. If the MSc courses go employers will have to rely on the output from undergraduate courses for their basic staffing needs. Are the MSc courses that vulnerable? Approximately eight students are required to cover the cost of one academic. An MSc course requires the equivalent of 1.8 to 2 full time staff; ie it requires 16 students per year to fund it. If the numbers attending these courses drop the courses will appear as "uneconomic"; this year alone MSc courses in Applied Structural Geology, and in Engineering Rock Mechanics are being run for the last time. They are just two examples of a number that have recently closed. It is happening and the MSc courses in Engineering Geology have little if any slack to accommodate hard times. What's to be done? The members of AGS have a unique and vital role to play. The foremost task is to bring the subject to the attention of undergraduates. Many first degree courses used to offer options in Engineering Geology; the number doing so now is greatly reduced. Courses of environmental study have replaced them. The greatest source of initial interest in the subject is the option in the first degree and now fewer and fewer applicants are being exposed to it. You have to take it to them. This means offering to speak to their Geology Clubs; they are unlikely to approach you, so be prepared to approach them yourselves. The Geological Society keeps a list of speakers so that student societies can obtain the names and addresses of those prepared to act. Make sure your name is on the list; the telephone number of the Society is 0171-434 9944. Then there is the dreadful problem of experience; many firms are not giving recently graduated geologists the opportunity of gaining basic experience. There is nothing more depressing and more likely to starve the MSc courses of applicants than an industry which closes its door on those who wish to enter. Universities cannot provide experience; only you can do that. The next task is to support the MSc courses. Industry needs to be informed of what is happening in universities and the best way of doing this is by becoming involved with a course. MSc's are usually grateful for outside speakers, collaboration for independent projects, opportunities to visit sites and the like. How can you help? Finally there is a need for bursaries; we need to be able to financially assist many on the course. You have seen the sort of debts they accumulate and the difficulty of obtaining relevant first employment to repay them. To support with bursaries is an investment in the future. What would your attitude towards a company be if they had helped you when you were young and badly needed support? At the meeting on the 4th November I suggested that your main committee should have someone responsible for monitoring education. Perhaps this is a subject which should be discussed amongst the members at large. I believe the AGS would do well to support it. Dr. Michael de Freitas, NVQ and SVQ's for the Drilling Industry A Review by Barry Johnson, Secretary of the BDA The British Drilling Association has had, since it's inception in 1976, a policy of encouraging training and education in the drilling industry. Contrary to some perceptions the specialism of drilling interfaces with many industry groups. Companies involved in such a specialist activity need personnel with a variety of skills from drilling, through supervisory, technical, professional and managerial. Whilst developing the drilling accreditation scheme, the association took the opportunity of studying the drilling industry, to establish it's training and educational requirements and how these would meet the Government's desire to put National Vocational Qualifications (NVQ's) in place. In 1992 the association completed a mapping study of the drilling industry, identifying those areas where training and vocational qualifications may be most relevant. It was evident that in the first place and without any formal qualification apart from accreditation to measure their competence, it was the drillers and their assistants that we would first need to address. After a number of years consultation, this work is now complete and NVQ's and SVQ's for Scotland have been agreed to Levels 1 and 2. Assistant drillers and helpers - Level 1; and Drillers - Level 2. These are now in place with the National Council for Vocational Qualifications for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Awarding Body being City and Guilds of London Institute. The Scottish Vocational and Education Council administer and award the qualification in Scotland. The intention is now to pursue Levels 3, 4 and 5 which cover supervisory, professional, technical and managerial staff. These had previously been ignored, the view being taken, that these levels had already been put in place by other organisations who had been developing N/SVQ's for some time. However, it is becoming evident that the qualifications already in place may not be wholly satisfactory and may need revision to satisfy the needs of some industry sectors. To illustrate this point, our mapping study identified that laboratory technicians were already covered by N/SVQ's established by the Chemical Industry Association. It transpired that these qualifications did not meet the needs of laboratory technicians employed by our site investigation specialist members. Representations were made and we are now in the process of assisting in the revision of the standards to meet the interests of a wide variety of industries. In this project the BDA is in contact with the AGS and The Ground Forum. No doubt many of you reading this piece will already know how N/SVQ awards are made and how the system works, but for those of you unfamiliar with the jargon I will try to explain. A National or Scottish Vocational Qualification is the recognition of the competence an employee has in the work place. This competence not only embraces his/her recognised skill at a given job task, it encompasses his/her attitude to others, their awareness of Health and Safety Regulations, other statutory obligations and how their job function interfaces with others both in their place of work and with third parties. An N/SVQ is comprised of several units of competence each one of which is made up of elements. These elements form part of the job function and are supported by a range statement giving dimension to the activities expected. Last and by no means least the candidate must demonstrate by evidence that he/she has the essential knowledge required to carry out the job to the standard of competence laid down. It is assumed that candidates will be awarded various units of competence before they finally qualify for the whole award, this process taking as long as is required by the candidate. To apply for the qualification, the applicant must satisfy their immediate superior that they are ready to satisfy the criteria for the unit or units they are to be assessed against. An application is then sent to the nearest approved centre where the application is processed and an internal assessor despatched to the applicants work place to carry out an assessment. If the applicant is successful the details are forwarded to the awarding body who have the records and assessment details verified by an external Assessor. If everything is in order a certificate is then issued to the applicant giving details of the unit or units achieved. In the event of an applicant not passing an assessment, further applications can be made until success has been achieved. Assessors are trained by the Awarding bodies who also approve and appoint the centres and verifiers. Vocational Qualifications have a major role to play in our industry, They have relevance, not only to those personnel without any paper qualifications, but also to graduates who need to show that they can apply their knowledge to their employer's benefit. CIRIA's Ground Engineering Research Programme CIRIA's research programme aims to provide for those who engineer the ground guidance about reducing the risks. The programme's technical areas include: ground investigation and characterisation, ground improvement, piling, underground construction, soil-structure interaction, methane and associated hazards to construction, contaminated land, engineering geology, and engineering of waste disposal. Currently, on this part of CIRIA's activities alone, we have twenty research contractors preparing the guidance. They are supported by over two hundred experts on project steering groups and the many more (thousands) of practitioners who help at workshops, with consultations and provide information to the studies. New CIRIA reports Recently published CIRIA reports include:
CIRIA projects in progress or forthcoming as open publications
Future CIRIA projects Future CIRIA projects, for which offers of financial and logistical support are welcome, include:
With the generous support of the construction industry, as research contractors, steering group members, consultees and users of information, CIRIA will continue to be the leading provider of information and good practice guidance needed by the ground engineering community and their clients. For further details contact Andrew Pitchford or Fin Jardine
at CIRIA Advice on Contractual Problems Stephen Francis, the Chairman of the AGS Loss Prevention Working Group, has recently moved to Dibb Lupton and Alsop, and would like to emphasise that he can still be contacted by AGS Members in need of guidance or advice on contractual issues. He would particularly like to hear about and help with:
As well as providing a valuable service, your call helps Stephen keep in touch with the actual problems and situations faced by AGS Member Firms. Initial advice is free of charge and without obligation. Stephen can be contacted on 0345 262 728 or by fax on 0171 796 6998. Norwest Holst take-over of ECoS Norwest Holst have acquired the environmental services organisation ECoS Environmental Limited. ECoS, which is based in Halifax, employs 40 scientific staff specialising in chemical analysis, occupational hygiene, health and safety training, workplace monitoring, stack sampling and environmental auditing. Rob Jackson, General Manager of ECoS says: "We are very pleased to have cemented our relationship and look forward to working with Norwest Holst". ECoS will trade as an autonomous division of Norwest Holst Soil Engineering Ltd with its current staff and is planning to extend its technical capability in the specialist environmental monitoring and testing markets in the UK and Northern Europe. Director of Norwest Holst Soil Engineering, John Swales based in Leeds says : " The purchase means that we are now able to provide our clients with a complete environmental support service". |
