AGS - The Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists

Most AGS members are aware or should be aware that ICRCL Guidance Note 59/83, 2nd edition was withdrawn by DEFRA in a letter from Steven Griffiths of the Contaminated Land Branch on 20 December 2002. The letter referred to the fact that the CLEA package (published by DEFRA and the Environment Agency), consisting of Contaminated Land Reports (CLRs) 7 to 10, the CLEA 2002 software, certain toxicological reports (TOX) and certain Soil Guideline Values (SGVs) is considered by DEFRA to represent the key instrument for generic assessment of the human health risks from contaminated land.

The reasoning put forward for the withdrawal of ICRCL 59/83 was that the guideline values are out of date and that they are not in line with the current statutory regime (Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990) and associated policy.

Up until that time many practitioners had relied heavily on the use of the ICRCL 59/83 guideline values for assessing human health risks associated with contaminated land. Others had already started to use alternative risk based methodologies such as RBCA, R&D P20, SNIFFER and of course CLEA. In many instances ICRCL or Dutch guideline values were used as a first screening before progressing to a quantitative risk assessment (QRA) for those contaminants of particular concern that were above the guideline values for a particular site.

The letter dated 20 December 2002 was immediately followed by a Briefing Note, also dated December 2002, from the Contaminated Land Branch of DEFRA. This briefing note emphasised that ICRCL 59/83, and especially Tables 3 and 4, should no longer be used. It can be noted that other ICRCL guidance has not been withdrawn. The DEFRA Briefing Note recognises the continued use of these other ICRCL guidance documents provided that they are not used as the sole source of information on which decisions are based.

A number of Local Authorities have now adopted the position that for the assessment of contaminated land, only UK based guidance is applicable. They will, therefore, no longer accept both ICRCL 59/83 and the Dutch Guidelines. In effect this means that where no published SGV exists then it is necessary to carry out a site specific QRA for each contaminant even before an initial screening can be undertaken. This constitutes a potential problem where there is also no TOX Report available, in that each organisation that carries out such risk assessments has to source appropriate and verifiable toxicological data.

An update of the existing CLEA Model was published in March 2003. A new version of the CLEA Model (open architecture version) is anticipated which is a spreadsheet version that allows more user-functionality.

SGVs have been published for Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Mercury, Nickel and Selenium. TOX Reports are available for Benzo (a) pyrene, Benzene, Inorganic Cyanide, Dioxins, Furans and Dioxin like PCBs but no SGVs. The Environment Agency have stated that they will be issuing additional SGVs in batches of 5 or 6 at quarterly intervals over the next 2 years.

But what is to happen in the interim ? - chaos according to some. At various conference and technical committee venues both consultants and Local Authorities have expressed their concerns over the rapid withdrawal of ICRCL 59/83 without a sufficiently comprehensive UK alternative being available.

In conclusion, AGS members should be aware of their responsibilities to their clients. If a geoenvironmental specialist were to continue to use ICRCL 59/83 in reports that they prepare for a client and those reports are subsequently submitted for approval to a regulator (such as part of a Planning Application) or to some other body such as a funding organisation and are rejected due to the use of ICRCL, it may very well be considered that the specialist has failed in its duties to the client because it has used reference material that has been officially withdrawn.

Equally there is a risk that the use of Dutch guidelines could be rejected. This will depend on the approach of the particular regulator. The alternative, apart from using the CLEA Model, is to use SNIFFER etc (see above). However, for all of these methods it is necessary to research toxicological data and to be able to verify these data within a UK context. Site specific criteria are therefore being based on a variety of sources of toxicological data of varying quality. How are those, such as regulators, who have the task of approving these derived values going to make judgements on the reliability and applicability of the toxicological data ?

Did you know that everyone in the geotechnical industry, whether director, manager, engineer or drill crew needs to have a recognised safety card after December this year? If they haven't got one, the Major Contractors Group (MCG), comprising some 24 of the UK's leading construction companies, will not let them visit or work on their sites. That's the message from the MCG, and there's a stampede at present to register for one of the few recognised cards, that of the Construction Skills Certification Scheme (CSCS). Up to April 2004, the CSCS card for professionals is available under 'grandfather rights' after passing a touch screen health & safety test (held at driving test centres), but after that time it will be necessary to have a National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) at Level 4.

It's a stark message that the MCG is putting out. Tolerance will no longer be exercised towards individuals and companies who cannot provide independent proof of their safety competence. The MCG is not alone, for their policy is supported either directly or indirectly by legislation, Health & Safety Executive (HSE), Construction Industry Training Board (CITB), unions and trade associations. Included in the latter is the British Drilling Association (BDA) who recognised the national trends some years ago and now has a target date for 1st January 2005 for a fully qualified drilling workforce. On this date a new Minimum Competence Standard will replace the Association's current Driller Accreditation Scheme and will apply to all drilling operatives irrespective of drilling application. This Standard will require possession of a CSCS drilling card, NVQ Land Drilling qualification at level 2 and regular on-site auditing by the BDA.

The BDA is mirroring, anticipating and extending what it believes are rapidly becoming the requirements in the construction industry. The national background is the drive towards proof of a workforce's safety and skill. A BDA presentation entitled "A Safe Pair of Hands" sets out in detail the background, trends and proposed action to provide that proof. The BDA is taking this presentation on the road over the forthcoming months into the offices of clients, agencies, designers and consulting engineers to both inform and seek co-operation within the geotechnical community of which it is part.

"A Safe Pair of Hands" does not confine itself to talking about those at the sharp end, but includes all those involved in geotechnical work co-operating together to provide safe, compliant and quality work. All have to be aware of and subject to the law particularly on health & safety matters. The HSE, in enforcing the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974, Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994 (CDM) and Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations 1999, is now placing more emphasis on the Clients' and designers' responsibilities and looking for a full audit trail. In particular, CDM regulations require firms to maintain and employ skilled workforces that are aware of health and safety requirements. Responsibility to be safe starts at the top, as is witnessed by the increasing pressure on directors to appoint and oversee safety measures and systems.

There are two elements arising from this, namely skill on the one hand and health & safety on the other that now have to be proven prior to employment on site. And that proof is no longer the product of self-certification, or mere attendance at training courses. The proof has to be provided by independent assessment and testing, and be of 'recent' origin not years out of date. Within construction trades there has existed a multitude of registration, qualification and training schemes for skill and safety, some of doubtful and dubious nature. The widescale availability of NVQs, created by the government, and their development for the specialist trades has provided a common base for specification and understanding. The BDA, together with the CITB, has created an NVQ Land Drilling which, through its differing assessment routes, provides a qualification for all members of a drill crew and the majority of drilling applications.

The NVQ Land Drilling assessment process is a lengthier and more involved process than the BDA's current Accreditation Scheme that will cease at the end of 2004. The NVQ also has the benefit of being partially government funded, and more nationally recognisable across trades and by clients.

The first part of the BDA's new Minimum Competence Standard, that of being a CSCS Land Drilling cardholder is inexorably linked to the NVQ requirement. To obtain the CSCS card a drilling operative has to register to take an NVQ and obtain it within 3 years. The person must also successfully complete a touchscreen health & safety test. Therefore the possession of CSCS and NVQ combines safety with skill and the necessary proof as required by the law. But one further step has also been introduced by the BDA, a feature of its current Driller Accreditation Scheme.

Qualification such as a GCSE, degree or NVQ, is for life and provides decreasing proof of a person's current knowledge and skill as time goes by. The accent today is that of continuous professional development (CPD) and quality assurance. The first calls for ongoing dusting off and lifting of skills while the second addresses current conformance to standards. A central principle has always existed in the BDA's Accreditation Scheme, since its inception in 1991, that drillers should be regularly inspected via an on-site audit. The auditing process, carried out by the BDA's own assessors (auditors), includes looking at the person, rig & equipment and is to continue within the new minimum competence standard making up the third part of the standard. The process is being strengthened and will run on quality assurance lines to ensure that non-conformances are closed out.

As from 1st January 2005 all drilling operatives should conform to the new Minimum Competence Standard of CSCS / NVQ2 / BDA Audited. This standard combines the 3 essential elements of a nationally recognised safety card (CSCS); national skill qualification (NVQ), and is industry verified & audited regularly (BDA). It will be the proof required by clients and their agents that the workforce is skilled and safety aware. The industry cannot achieve acceptance of this standard without the co-operation of those who specify drilling works and monitor the credentials of the labour employed. With this in mind, the BDA is proactively engaged, through the "Safe Pair of Hands" presentation, in spreading the message and seeking co-operation. The BDA invites contact from all interested parties either to comment or obtain further information.

British Drilling Association Wayside London End Upper Boddington Daventry Northamptonshire NN11 6DP

Report of presentation given to AGS Members Day by Mark Shaw (Maccaferri Ltd) on behalf of the Business Practice WG

1. What is the insurance position if there is third party damage when acting as a consultant?

1. Who is responsible for the damage - i.e. who was negligent. 2. Was there any specific reference to liabilities within the contract?

Every person has a duty of care under the Common Law of the country towards every other person and their possessions. If you cause loss, damage, injury or death by your own negligence then you are responsible, irrespective of the capacity that you were acting in at the time of the occurrence.

A standard Public Liability Insurance covers you against your actions in the course of your business and will indemnify you against payments incurred (excluding fines), providing that you are proven to be negligent.

It is possible that any contract you enter into may make some stipulation regarding responsibility - especially in relation to third party property. This may place or allocate responsibility but there must still be a negligent act to trigger the event.

There is a possibility that in some circumstances negligence - and therefore liability - could be apportioned between two parties involved in a single incident. A typical example could be where a Consultant is instructed specifically where to drill for soil samples - being assured by the Contractor that the area is totally clear of underground pipework. If work starts and there is something underground that becomes ruptured or severed (water or electric) then there could be a share of negligence. The Contractor would point to the fact that the Consultant should have checked the situation for himself before proceeding, whereas the Consultant would say that he only bored where specifically instructed with confirmation that the area was clear. It is likely that in these circumstances the liability would be shared equally by the two parties.

This is not always very clear from an insurance point of view and it can become a legal issue.

English law is founded on the principle of "reasonableness", which basically says that all matters are decided based on whether those involved had acted in a manner which was considered, in their particular circumstances, to be that expected by an ordinary person - once defined as "the man on the Clapham Omnibus".

It is rare for an insurance policy to make any specific reference to levels of care and skill but there would be an assumption that both would be adequate for the task being undertaken. Insurance policies are written on the basis of "utmost good faith" which means that the Insured has told the Underwriter everything that is relevant to the cover being sought. Obviously the Underwriter is also free to ask any suitable questions on the matter as he thinks fit.

One area where skill levels do specifically come in for consideration is in respect of Health and Safety. Under the Health and Safety at Work Act there is a stipulation that all businesses should have access to a "competent person". This term is not defined within the Act but the Health and Safety Executive have indicated that it means a person who has sufficient training and sufficient knowledge to be able to undertake the task.

A similar situation applies in respect of Statutory Inspections of plan and equipment where it is stipulated that such inspections must be undertaken by a "competent person".

By now we are all aware that the AGS data interchange format saves having to re-key borehole data, and that the earlier in its life the data is committed to AGS, the greater the benefit. Up to now the earliest practical opportunity to do so was after the borehole information had been written by hand, either by the driller or the on-site engineer. Typing up the driller's notes is extremely time-consuming, and often requires a trained professional to correctly determine what needs to be entered. It is also at this stage, when the information is transcribed from the driller's log to the computer, that most data errors are introduced.

The answer, of course, is to bring the computer to the drilling site, and enter the data immediately - an electronic version of the driller's log. However, there are obvious problems with this idea. Standard laptops/palmtops are not waterproof or rugged enough, and rugged field computers are prohibitively expensive.

But now, with the arrival of Pocket PC technology, a solution is at hand. After 18 months of trials with a number of SI companies, software developers Key Systems Geotechnical have now launched their PDA exploratory hole logging system, PocketSI.

The problem of operation in all weathers and surviving the rigours of site work has been addressed by protecting the device in an Otterbox® armoured case that enables the touch screen and function buttons to be operated through a waterproof membrane.


iPAQ PDA in an OTTERBOX running PocketSI	PocketSI synchronizing with its base station

The software is easy to use, very intuitive, and flexible enough to handle a wide range of on-site scenarios. It has a number of 'optimized' data interfaces for handling common tasks like trial pitting, dynamic probing and standard penetration tests.

It also makes light work of text and number entry by providing dropdown lists and simplified keypads. Longer text fields, such as sample or strata descriptions, even have 'snippets', or lists of common words and phrases that can be inserted simply by tapping the screen. Previously used complete field entries are stored in a list to be re-used for subsequent records.

Output is, of course, via AGS format, and data can be transmitted by email at frequent intervals during site investigation, or saved up until it can be downloaded to a PC. Most of these portable machines are capable of carrying non-volatile flash memory cards, so the data is safe even if the device becomes unserviceable.

The Pocket PC is well placed to exploit the merging of the telecommunications and computer technologies, and a number of models are already supplied with a built-in telephone.

Adjudication was made a feature of all construction contracts by the 'Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1966' . Section 108 of the Act provides parties to a contract with a right to refer disputes arising from the contract to adjudication and sets out certain minimum procedural requirements which enable either party to refer the matter to an independent party who is then required to make a decision within 28 days.

It can be used at any stage of the contract (ie to decide contractual disputes with designers before construction begins, to resolve contractual disputes between contractors and subcontractors). It can be an effective way of dealing with payment problems as well as technical disputes. What is more, the right to adjudication exists, regardless of the contract and even if the contract is totally silent on the matter of adjudication.

The industry bodies (CIC, NSCC, BPF, SECGroup, CC) have prepared a very useful and comprehensive guide to the arbitration process. The publication tells you what adjudication is, helps you to establish whether you have the right to take a dispute to adjudication and discusses whether you need professional help. It sets out th steps you have to take to start an adjudication, and tells how to respond should you receive a notice of adjudication. It explains what happens during the adjudication process; what you can expect from the adjudicator's decision, what your options are once the adjudicator has made his decision - and who pays the costs.

Perhaps the best news is that you can download all this helpful advice absolutely free from www.cic.org.uk (Suggestion: don't delay, at present the link is on the home page, if you wait until you want it, it may not be as obvious!)

Go to Top of Page

When the late Sir John Knill spoke to the AGS Committee in May 2000, he was less than complementary about the quality of many of the ground reports that he received in the course of his work as an expert witness. He suggested that the AGS should prepare guidance to signpost what should be included in an interpretative report on ground conditions and set a benchmark for good practice.

The original terms of reference were restricted to geotechnical interpretative reports but it quickly became evident that it would be inappropriate to treat interpretative reports in isolation from the other reports generated as part of the site investigation process. The concept of the Ground Report as a 'live' document developed from this realisation. It is 'an account of the whole job from start to finish' (Palmer, 1957).

it also became apparent that many of the proposals were equally applicable to some aspects of geoenvironmental projects. The extent of this applicability is explained by notes in the text.

This guidance is being made available on the AGS website in order to maximise its availability to the industry, as desired by Sir John Knill. It is hoped that it will be come the industry standard guide, and that it will be particularly beneficial to young geospecialists and those who train them.

This International Standard specifies three methods for the pretreatment of soil samples in the laboratory prior to the determination of organic contaminants: - if volatile organic compounds are to be measured; - if moderately volatile to non-volatile organic compounds are to be measured, if the result of the subsequent analysis must be accurate and reproducible, and if the sample contains particles larger than 2 mm and/or the contaminant is heterogeneously distributed; - if non-volatile organic compounds are to be measured and the extraction procedure prescribes a field- moist sample, or if the largest particles of the sample are smaller than 2 mm and the contaminant is homogeneously distributed. This procedure is also applicable if reduced accuracy and repeatability are acceptable. The pretreatment described in this International Standard is used in combination with an extraction procedure in which the contaminant is available for the extraction liquid. NOTE For the pretreatment of soil samples for the purposes of determining non-volatile inorganic compounds and physico-chemical soil characteristics, see ISO 11464.

This standard specifies a test method for determining the activity of the active, heterotrophic microbial biomass in soils. The method is applicable to the monitoring of soil quality and to the evaluation of the ecotoxic potential of soils and soil materials. It is also applicable to soils that are contaminated experimentally in the field or laboratory (chemical testing) and for soils sampled along contamination gradients in the field.

It is one of a series of International Standards for biological test methods that have been adopted as British Standards - see list below. Further biological test methods are currently being processed in ISO TC190/SC4 (Soil quality - biological methods).

AGS Newsletters