|
||
|
 |
          |
 |
 |
|
|
Newsletter Issue 52 - July 2006 AGS training takes First Steps The AGS welcomes the BRE and First Steps
initiative and look forward to working with them to develop courses relevant and
useful to Members. Companies with a training need are
invited to contact First Steps to discuss their requirements. While the AGS is pleased about this development, and will co-operate to assist Members, the relationship with First Steps is not exclusive. The Business Practice WG has taken on responsibility for training in general and will be happy to work with other training providers to cater for Members' interests. What could training do for your company? Whether you want to improve your relationship with a client, find ways of reducing the cost of your Professional Indemnity, retain your present staff or even sharpen your company profile, training is a valuable and cost-effective resource. Why is training of value? The
answer is, because "knowledge" brings opportunities to your company and
rewards to your personnel. Awareness:
A trained person can take advantage of an opportunity they recognise, as and
when it occurs. This is most clearly seen in drilling, logging, sampling,
description and testing. The member of staff who senses that something "is
not right" or "does not add up"
or is "something you ought to know" can
save you time, money and reputation: and not only you. To offer your clients a
service that is staffed by "eyes" and "brains" presents them with a
sensible way to cut costs as an alternative to rigid, inadequate, GI born of
their unhappy experience. Here is a real way to improve effectiveness. Value for
money arising from trust in good work can become the basis for commercial
flexibility: a point of relevance to your insurer. The training now available
provides employers with practical and authoritative guidance for their staff,
who may have come into this industry from a variety of backgrounds - not all
of them geotechnical. Integration: Knowledge enables separate pieces of data to be combined, so that the activities which generate them lead towards a whole - in this case, the geological, geotechnical and geoenvironmental model of the ground. Staff who know how their data fits together form a team that enables these models to be created. Without them the data can remain as data and never inform those who need to know. Reward:
Many managers of today had their university fees
paid and have been able to convert the knowledge they gained into a career that
supports a comfortable standard of living. Many younger staff have been denied
this and are being denied this. Training is therefore a real reward for staff
who need it. It is worth more than cash to them because they, like you, can
convert it into a standard of living. Even if they leave for a better paid job
sometime after the training you have provided, is that a good reason for keeping
them ignorant? Is your company the better for their ignorance? And would you be
so concerned if someone trained by a competitor could be found? Recruitment:
Is this a time you realise you are on your own? The employment agency
is incompetent, your competitors are chiselling crooks, you cannot turn the work
around and could lose that client? You could have avoided the worst of this by
training the staff you have; how much easier life would be if they could cope
with more than the tasks for which they were recruited. Perhaps there was
neither the time nor the resources for you to do this - but if there had been,
would you have taken advantage of it? Would you have trained your company so
that it could cope with fluctuating work loads and times of staff shortage?
Would you appreciate being able to recruit someone with a recognisable level of
practical training, and immediately useable skills, and not just have to rely on
"x-years experience" with someone else? If the answer to any of these issues has been "yes" then training has something very real and positive to offer you. But
when could you take advantage of this? Training
is happening now There was a time when most companies did train their staff; some still do but they are a minority. The culture has gone and Business Management theory is firmly to blame. Cutting training was an easy economy to make at the time.there was a pool of trained staff."use those trained by others.besides it opens up mobility in the market place and tests their market value." Well, where are the Business Managers now we are in trouble? The common sense culture of investment in training needs to be re-established. Training is now
available across the entire range of competences within the industry - but it is early
days. Information on this can be found on the home page of the AGS web site ( look under Training and see also the Members Day 2006
Report). Training
is dynamic and flexible. The provision being created now and described in the
Members Day Report of 2006, can respond to your needs, but first depends upon
you appreciating that it is there and can be used to your benefit. As you read
this there could be a member of your staff "picking it up as they go along"
from someone who does not understand "it" either.a time bomb of false
economy waiting to damage your company. How has this happened? For training to exist three requirements must be met:
First Steps initiated training with its course on Soil and Rock Description for BS 5930 - provided by Emerson and Moore and popular since the day it started. From this start other courses have followed and a full list of these can be found on www.firststeps.uk.com: click on "Courses and Training". These courses are hands-on practical training where at least 50% of the course time involves the trainee actually learning a practical skill. Readers will note that the Geotechnics Section at the BRE is now involved. First Steps and BRE are now providers for our industry
across the complete range of competences. The opportunity now exists for you to
improve your company through training. If your company needs training that is
not currently provided, or wishes to give a course not commonly given, then
contact Christine Butenuth to arrange it. First Steps and BRE are not only
providers of their own training but a vehicle for training provided by others;
the AGS is providing one of its own courses through this training vehicle (The
generation of Information from AGS formatted electronic data to be organised
by Steve Walthall). Costs have
deliberately been set to remain affordable but this is an issue that could
become a problem: training will only remain affordable if sufficient members
come forward to be trained: the demand is there and the supply also - what
needs to develop is the habit of training. The
rewards for training have to be both corporate and personal: corporate benefits
have already been outlined. Personal benefits are essential and start with a
certificate that is worth more than the paper on which it is printed. First
Steps and BRE have asked the AGS and GF to approve courses of training and
certificate them, so that those attending have a document that is "currency"
recognised by other employers within geotechnics: in this the AGS certificate
will differ from the usual CPD which can be allocated to almost any course
regardless of its value. Progress with this is underway thanks to Jonathan
Gammon in his capacity as Chairman of the Business Practice Working Group and
Leonard Threadgold in his capacity as champion for Training. Too good to be true? It
could be if too few members come forward for training. The present arrangements
must be sustainable. In general it costs £250 to train one person per day (the
cost of a few determinations of PI or a couple of metres of core) and the
arrangements described need in the region of 300 people a year. Three people
from one hundred companies a year. It sounds reasonable but only you can make it
so. Think of the benefits! Michael de Freitas ======================================= Deadline looms as the ICE introduces the 3000 series Members with agreed training schemes
need to get these rewritten by Autumn 2006 in order to accommodate the changes
being made by the ICE implementing their new membership documents. What
has changed? Progressive
Route Broader
Membership All ICE members are eligible to apply
for registration as Chartered Environmentalists (CEnv). Increased
emphasis In addition to the changes identified
above, the 3000 Series introduces increased emphasis on Health, Safety and
Welfare, particularly in the context of holistic risk management. Similarly,
ICE's competence requirements for sustainable development have been revised. For further information, go to: http://www.ice.org.uk/downloads//Series3000(1).doc ======================================= AGS Client Guides are intended to help
Members get their message about good practice across to clients and to reassure
Clients that these are actually industry views - not just the aberration of a
particular individual or company. Building on the often quoted (but
possibly unsubstantiated) view that clients will only read a single sheet, most
of the Guides are a single A4 card - with straightforward layout and even some
illustrations. They are
intended to be handed or sent to clients as part of pre contract negotiations,
or accompanying tenders, or as part of routine mail shots. Copies are available from the AGS on
request (without charge) or can be downloaded from the website (see Publications). Available Guides:
Semple Fraser adds Scottish dimension to Loss Prevention The Loss Prevention WG has been aware
for some time that the alerts and advice issued to Members apply to English law
only. However this is set to change, with a
new alliance with Semple Fraser, a leading commercial law firm in Scotland with
a Construction Group that are willing to give a Scottish dimension to the AGS
guidance. Steven Francis (Eversheds), Chairman of
the WG said, "We welcome this opportunity to improve our advice to Members and
look forward to working with Semple Fraser to help our Scottish Members". AGS Members are invited to identify those areas - or existing AGS documents - which they think should be regarded as priority for Semple Fraser's attention. BS10175: Investigation of potentially contaminated sites, code of practice (2001) due for review This review
will be carried out by the BSi EH/4 Committee.
Following on from the official announcement, expected shortly, there will
be a three month period in which to make comments on this British Standard.
Comments can
be sent directly to BSi, following the announcement details.
Alternatively, comments can be sent to Peter Rodd (peter.rodd@jacobs.com),
who will present them to the committee, by the end of August. Peter
Rodd The
categorisation, analysis and reporting of 'made ground' is a recurring
nightmare for the modern laboratory. Traditionally a by-product of land
reclamation schemes, a container of the stuff can contain traces of anything
from steel, concrete and brick to nappies and Coke cans - and that's on a
good day. Ask
anyone from the engineer taking samples at the coalface to the men in white
coats analysing them, and you will find that there is no all-encompassing
approach to deal with the 'made ground' conundrum. Nevertheless, with
brownfield sites being universally hailed as the sustainable way forward, now,
more than ever before, is the time to seriously evaluate the methods employed
both on-site and in the laboratory and try to circumvent the insidious 'no
easy answer' maxim. Much
of the confusion goes back to the introduction of the Environment Agency's
Monitoring Certification Scheme (MCERTS) for the chemical testing of soils. Any
laboratory operating under this banner has to submit results that fulfil both
the general requirements of ISO/IEC 17025 and the specific method validation and
performance requirements of MCERTS. The latter is problematic for laboratories
dealing with made ground, inasmuch as it requires samples to conform to specific
sample matrices in order for the results to become accredited. For relatively
unadulterated soils, this has meant the creation of soil classification
categories such as 'loamy soil', 'sandy soil' or 'clay type soil'.
It is worth noting that while some geotechnical engineers may see this as a
tenuous oversimplification, it is widely regarded as the best available approach
and has the full endorsement of the Environment Agency and UKAS - albeit based
on economical drivers. Made ground's inherent ambiguity throws a rather
obtrusive spanner in the works when faced with these basic matrices and prompts
all manner of interpretive stances and questions. Some good starters for ten:
can you report made ground results as accredited? Is it possible to report them
as 'unaccredited' to make it clear to the engineer that the sample does not
fall into a clear defined matrix? It
isn't just an issue of categorisation - the whole process, from preparation
to final report, is divested of any consistency as laboratories adopt their own
approach by asking questions such as do we dry the sample? Do we mill the sample
to uniform particle size? Do we discard anything over 2mm? Do we ignore
everything that is not soil? None of these methods will provide an inaccurate
result per se, but each has the potential to give a misleading picture of
the site. If,
in addition to that head-scratching list of questions, you consider the fact
that the commercially driven nature of redevelopment schemes has turned
laboratories into high-tech, scientific conveyor belts, the complexities of the
problem becomes increasingly pronounced. It is a crossroads situation reliant on
good judgement, experience and, above all, a decent sample. It is impossible to
overstate the critical nature of the latter point: without a comprehensive
sample, the laboratory cannot do its job. In other words, it cannot capture the
essence of a site's industrial legacy and act as a signpost to the appropriate
action. Though
MCERTS has to a certain extent raised the standards in the laboratory, it missed
an opportunity by not offering any guidance to the geotechnical engineer on the
best available techniques (BAT) for sampling, storage and transportation; nor
does it elaborate on the consequences of incorrect, inappropriate or inadequate
sampling. The reason the EA has put the onus on the laboratories is
understandable - to allow continuity of testing pre- and post-MCERTS - but
the resultant confusion and knowledge deficit, particularly with regards to
sampling, is less than satisfactory. As
throwing legislation at the problem is unlikely to be constructive, the best
achievable course of action is to engender a milieu of interdisciplinary
compatibility fuelled by open lines of communication, intellectual communality
and the symbiotic sharing of knowledge. Geoscientists should learn how to
adequately describe their sample, how to make the sample manageable for the
laboratory and to understand the laboratory machinations of sample preparation,
analysis and reporting. By the same token, chemists should acquire some field
experience, learn about the conditions engineers face on-site and educate
themselves on the processes that inform geotechnical sampling techniques. If
the question of how to produce consistently accurate results from made ground is
reducible to a single answer, it can only be to ask more questions: what are the
limitations of the selected analytical method? If there are limitations, do they
matter in this case? On what basis is the data reported? Does it match the basis
on which my acceptance criteria are calculated? Has the sample data been
generated in ideal conditions using ideal standards which are unlikely to
represent the conditions on my site? Add a soupçon of communication, wait for
MCERTS to catch up and we're well on our way. Andrew Buck PhD, MSc, CSci, CChem, FRSC is the Technical Director of Envirolab (www.envlab.co.uk) Modernising Waste Regulation - Environment Agency Update Exemptions Under new
procedures "simple" exempt activities can now be registered by calling the
National Customer Contact Centre on 08708 506506.
Trained advisors will provide basic advice and offer the option of
registering by phone, email or using a two page form. An online web based system
will also be introduced in the future. More complex exemptions, including all
chargeable exemptions, will continue to be dealt with by local Area staff who
have to undertake a site specific risk assessment. Waste
Licensing "Fixed
licences" are now available for the most popular waste activities (such as
transfer stations and compost activities).
Working plans or site specific risk assessments are no longer required.
The application form is simpler and licences are slightly cheaper and
quicker to obtain, particularly if planning permission is already in place.
Applications should be made locally in the same way as previously. Fixed licences will not be subject to change. Variations in operations may require a bespoke licence, as at present. Environment Agency, April 2006 This
latest version of the policy clarifies the Agency's position on in situ testing.
The Agency believes that in situ testing has a valuable complementary role to
play in improving the quality of site investigation and remediation as well as
reducing costs. Appropriate on site testing can be used for improved targeting
of conventional sampling, better spatial delineation of contaminated areas, and
the development of conceptual site models. The
document has been published on the Land Contamination section of the Agency's
web site at: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/subjects/landquality/113813/590825/?version=1&lang=_e ======================================= A new perspective in geological mapping A new on-line service called
CENTREMAPSlive® provides a
means to buy custom extracts of geological mapping in a uniquely
accessible In the past geological mapping has
either been available as a paper map or data for use in GIS systems. The former
offers limited interaction CENTREMAPSlive® uses a
layered PDF format which can be quickly ordered and downloaded from the site. A
sample can be download from On opening the document the user
clicks the 'Layers' tab to reveal the option to turn on and off layers such
as Bedrock, Superficial, Faults The data is supported by both a
bedrock and a superficial geology legend which only lists rocks found in the
supplied mapping. In addition to the familiar BGS
1:50,000 geological mapping, BGS GeoSure is available offering a rating of land
stability for 6 different factors comprising: Slope Instability; Shrink-Swell;
Running Sand; Compressible; Collapsible and Soluble Rocks. Andrew Terry, Manager Three
main issues were discussed:
Online
Bidding Both
the AGS and FPS have now published position papers concerning the use of on-line
bidding for the procurement of geotechnical contract.
Both organisations have expressed some reservations. The full position
papers can be found on the AGS and FPS websites (www.fps.org.uk
and www.ags.org.uk).
Electronic
Tendering Protocol A
survey of AGS members carried out in 2003 revealed that nearly 75% of those who
responded had tendered for contracts based upon electronic information and of
those 75% indicated that tendering based upon electronic information had not
saved them any time. The main reasons highlighted for this were:
In
an attempt to address this situation, the FPS and AGS have prepared a joint
protocol for the presentation of electronic data when provided for tendering
purposes. The purpose of the protocol is to encourage good practice with respect
to indexing, the provision of relevant information, and the use of open
electronic formats when inviting tenders based upon electronic information. The
AGS and FPS are seeking to promote the protocol within standard specifications
for geotechnical works such as the new specifications for Site Investigation and
the specification embedded walls. A
copy of the protocol is provided below. If
you have any comments to make on the protocol or how and where it should be
promoted please contact Dianne Jennings at ags@ags.org.uk. AGS
Data The
AGS data format is long established as the preferred format for exchanging
electronic geotechnical and geo-environmental data within the Anecdotal
evidence would suggest that most site investigation contractors are both willing
and able to produce AGS data and equally many sub-contractors and
sub-consultants are keen to use AGS data. There
seems to be some blockage in the chain preventing the data getting from source
to user (see diagram). The
FPS and AGS have agreed jointly to attempt to clear this blockage, focusing in
the first instance on the use of AGS data by piling contractors. This
problem is trying to be addressed from both ends:
Quite
understandably site investigation contractors may feel it inappropriate to
provide the information to an organisation that is not their client.
This difficult issue is still being considered further by the Business
Practice working group. In the
meantime, a questionnaire is being prepared to gather the thoughts and views
from site investigation contractors and this will be distributed later in the
year. If you have any comments or thoughts on any of the issues raised please contact Dianne Jennings who will put you in contact with the relevant working Group member. Electronic tendering protocol for geotechnical works
1. Contract conditions
Drilling down into industry safety Site investigation companies
should expect increased HSE attention following the recent successful
prosecution of CET Limited following an accident where a drill rig operator was
forced several times through a 24cm gap between the mast and the auger.
Guarding and stopping devices were considered inadequate and not in
compliance with the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998
(PUWER). CET were fined £20,000
(plus costs of £30,000) under Section 2 of the Health & Safety at Work etc
Act 1974. A second, recent, incident,
were the operator suffered a broken shoulder and two broken arms in similar
circumstances only serves to underline the seriousness of ignoring the PUWER
requirements. Many AGS Members will already have received a letter from the HSE clarifying the legal responsibilities of employers to safe guard their employees. Legal Requirements Under current
Common Failures Recent investigation by HSE
has shown that people may be being placed at risk due to one or more of the
following reasons:
Risk Assessment The primary aim should always
be to completely eliminate any risk identified e.g. by effective guarding; where
this is not practicable the risk must be reduced as much as possible by safe
systems of work & the provision of information, instruction & training. HSE has found that drilling
equipment frequently requires close approach to the rotating drill string
whether to operate controls, to take samples, backfill or for other reasons.
This obviously increases the risk of people becoming entangled if access
to the dangerous part of machinery is not effectively prevented.
Any risk assessment needs to recognise the implications of this risk
& ensure that the protective measures chosen offer the highest practicable
level of protection. Large piling
rigs are covered by separate guidance produced by the Federation of Piling
Specialists in liaison with HSE taking into account the different nature of the
risks. Levels of Protection
The last two points are
not "stand-alone" measures but should be provided in all cases. Where access to the rotating
drill string is to be prevented by a guard it should extend from 0.5 metres
above ground level in all cases to 2 metres above ground level or 2 metres above
the operator position if elevated. The rotating drill string, even at
relatively low speeds, is an extremely dangerous part of machinery.
The law demands that the highest practicable level of protection should
be supplied to prevent access to the dangerous part.
As the BDA guidance quite correctly states in the "protective devices
selection" section the actual decision must be made impartially & with
safety, not time or cost, as the overriding concern. In HSE's opinion, given the
practical operational difficulties a fully fixed guard would give, the best
practicable solution in the majority of cases will be some form of moveable,
interlocked guard. It should be remembered that
the rotating drill string is always to be considered a dangerous part of
machinery from which people require the highest practicable means of protection.
This will not always be the most convenient or cheapest option available.
Where manufacturers are no
longer trading, or effective guards are not yet available, bespoke guarding
options can be retrofitted easily in most cases. Trip Wires, Stop Bars
& Light Beams Trip wires & stop bars are
included in the hierarchy but they are clearly a lower level of protection than
a physical guard be it interlocked or fixed.
In order to activate a trip wire or stop bar the person is usually
already entangled given the proximity of the device to the drill; plus due to
the "wind-down" time further injury is likely once the device is activated. PUWER requires access to be
prevented - trip wire, stop bar or light beam type fixtures positioned in
close proximity to the drill string will not usually prevent access to it.
They may reduce the level of injury once a person is entangled but they
do not prevent the accident occurring. Only where a physical guard
which effectively prevented access was evidently impracticable would HSE
consider a trip wire, light beam, pressure pad or stop bar arrangement a
realistic option; further additional measures may also be needed to lower the
risk to an acceptable level, for example, relocating operator positions, the
fitting of devices to remove spoil automatically preventing repeated activation,
a strict regime of maintenance & testing & close supervision. Emergency Stops At least one emergency stop
should be fitted to each rig, one being next to the operator position.
Such stops must be separate from the usual off switch & require
manual re-set so that they cannot fail to danger once activated.
They should be so designed as to bring the part of the operation causing
the danger to a complete halt in the shortest achievable amount of time. Other Considerations Risk assessments should also
address other associated risks to safety & health.
For example, risks from overhead power lines, underground services,
vehicle movements, noise, falling objects, manual handling, soil contamination,
the availability of proper welfare facilities to name but a few. Conclusion
The entanglement risks faced by those operating, or working in close proximity to, drilling rigs are well known. The legal requirements to protect people are similarly well known & the guidance clear. The key factor in protecting
people from these dangerous machines is a realistically robust risk assessment
& the provision of a truly effective means of preventing access to the
dangerous part. HSE will expect to see the
highest practicable level of protection in place with full justification for
measures from further down the hierarchy where they are found. We hope that the above
guidance is clear enough to leave you in no doubt about the level of protection
required. If HSE has to investigate
any further accidents of this kind we will take into account the additional
guidance in this annex & letter we have provided to you/your Company in
deciding what enforcement action may be appropriate. *
"Guidance Notes for the Protection of Persons from Rotating Parts &
Ejected or Falling Material Involved in the Drilling Process" can be supplied
by the. British Drilling Association (BDA) Tel:
01327 264 622
Annual meeting comes to London The
annual meeting of ISO/TC190 (Soil Quality) is to be held in The
meeting will discuss ISO and CEN standards for soil quality that are currently
being developed and will consider existing standards that are due for review.
Currently BS10175 is due for review! Project
Horizontal will also be on the agenda which is a process by which similar tests
for various industries are amalgamated into a single horizontal standard which
then automatically becomes a European standard if it meets the required approval
criteria, determined by a vote of the participating countries. Project
Horizontal is working on a number of tests relevant to AGS members which lend
themselves quite readily to the 'horizontal' approach. Of
particular interest is the CEN TC345 project on the characterisation of sludge
which is developing chemical test methods required since the issue of the Sludge
Directive. Delegates
will be coming from many parts of the world including; European, EEC and EEC
applicant countries, BSI
are looking for sponsorship to pay for the administration costs not covered by
BSi, and for providing a formal dinner and excursions for the delegates. The BSI
EH/4 committee hope that that some members of the AGS may be willing to help as
sponsors. They are looking for £250 from businesses of 20 or less employees and
£500 from bigger companies. The
number of sponsors accepted will be limited to the amount of sponsorship
required and thus sponsor's exposure to this wide array of delegates will not
be swamped by a huge amount of literature. The
benefits of being a sponsor are as follows: Small business sponsors will be offered a marketing package opportunity for £250 of the following:
Large business sponsors will be offered a marketing package opportunity for £500 of the following (they will not be offered a £250 sponsorship package):
The EH4 Committee agreed that this event is a great networking opportunity for the industry. A seminar on MCERTS will also be held and sponsors will be allowed free entry on the same basis as the meal. Should your company wish to sponsor this international meeting please contact me in the first instance, peter.rodd@jacobs.com Peter Rodd
|
