|
||
|
 |
          |
 |
 |
|
|
In order to promote the AGS at the inaugural civil engineering exhibition organised by EMAP, the AGS have booked a stand. The exhibition will be held at the NEC in Birmingham from 19th to 21st May 1998. The AGS will provide a profile of its members on the stand as well as all current publications. Originally it was hoped that a Groundex exhibition could be organised within Civils 98. Unfortunately plans were too far advanced for this to happen in the 1998 exhibition but it is hoped that something will be organised for the next one in 2000. Further details of Civils 98 can be obtained from the organisers Emap Construct Tel: 0171-505-6625. Loss Prevention Working Group Report - Progress on Toolkit The basic premise behind the toolkit is that AGS members would benefit from a series of pithy and authoritative guidance papers on issues such as contract administration, insurance, risk identification and report preparation. Members of the working group have been assigned specific topics on which to prepare outline papers which are then distributed among the group for discussion. The guidance papers will initially appear on the AGS's web site and ultimately in a loose leaf manual which members can add to and update. Members who think about such matters will have realised that the level of subscription and the number of AGS Members do not produce a huge annual income for the AGS. Despite this restriction however, the AGS has produced an impressive number of documents and has gone from strength to strength in the ten years of its existence. This has only been possible because of the hard work done by certain dedicated individuals who have been prepared to put their own time and effort towards the success of the AGS. To be truly fair, mention should be made of everyone who has sat on the AGS Committee and Working Groups from the inception of the Association. Happily, the AGS has been very fortunate in the number of people who have helped in some way and this list is too long to print here. Special mention should be made, however, of several people who have made contributions way beyond the norm and who deserve more public recognition for their efforts. Helen Smith - who, as Helen Green - led the Loss Prevention Working Group in the production of the AGS 'Model Report' - already a deserved best seller in the AGS publication list, and widely acclaimed for the clarity of its presentation and the quality of the advice and guidance which it offers to geoenvironmental report writers - and indeed to all report writers. Tim Spink - who, although exiled to Turkey by his employers Mott MacDonald, nevertheless overcame his isolation to design and implement the very successful AGS website. The number of visitors continues to increase and in the new year all AGS Members will be given the opportunity to have a link established with their own sites - making the site doubly valuable to Members. Although many people have the skill to 'get something up there', few are able to produce the quality and complexity which Tim has brought to the AGS Site. Richard Thomas - Richard is now nearing the end of a mammoth undertaking to write a Guide to Laboratory Testing, clarifying the issues involved in sampling and laboratory testing and providing invaluable guidance for young practitioners and all those in need of a refresher course in good practice. Although supported and assisted by a Working Party, the responsibility (and the weight) of this production has rested very heavily on Richard and the resulting document (expected by the end of the year) is eagerly awaited. The very grateful thanks of the AGS Committee and all AGS Members go to these Individuals for their contribution to the continuing success of the Association. Main Committee invite guest speakers As part of the ongoing initiative to increase the awareness of the geotechnical and geoenvironmental industry to the aims and objectives of the AGS, and for the AGS to understand the needs of the industry a series of guests have been invited to recent main committee meetings. The guests have included Dr Peter Allen of the BGS, John Walters from the EIC and Fin Jardine from CIRIA. Each of them gave a presentation on their current initiatives. At the latest meeting Dr Mike De Freitas from Imperial College gave a personnel view on the current state of courses in geotechnical engineering and engineering geology. Renewed call for case histories - Members invited to pool experiences Members will recall that they have already been asked to supply details of their experience to date with the landfill tax. Response so far has been slow - possibly because many applications for exemption are still being processed - possibly because Members' experience with the tax so far has been limited. One of the main objectives for collecting these experiences has now become URGENT. The Government review of the Landfill Tax, which was originally expected to take place next year has suddenly been brought forward so that it can be completed in time for the next budget. Responses have been requested by the end of November - and even with some relaxation of the deadline - any AGS response must be with the Landfill Tax Policy Team before Christmas. This means that your help is needed NOW! The review is covering the following issues:-
These are the 'official' questions from Customs and Excise, who also advise that other issues may be raised - although technical aspects (eg registration and deregistration, record keeping, accounting requirements, penalty regimes, etc) will be dealt with separately. If you have any comments, thoughts, examples, proposals, suggestions or experience with any of the following - please send them, without delay, to Dianne Jennings (Fax: 0181 663 0949) so they can be passed to the Task Force preparing the Association's response. Spending freeze set to delay contaminated land regime Implementation of the new regime for cleaning up contaminated land which was established by the Environment Act 1995 looks increasingly likely to be delayed, possibly as far ahead as 1999. The major cause will be the Government's pre-election promise not to increase public expenditure above the plans inherited from its predecessor for its first two years in power. The 1995 Act established new provisions for the identification and remediation of contaminated sites and apportionment of liability for clean-up. Responsibility for applying them will be shared between the environment agencies and local authorities. The previous Government was close to implementing the new regime before the election intervened. Expectations that implementation would not be long delayed were stirred by junior Environment Minister Angela Eagle in May, when she said that the Government hoped to announce its intentions before the parliamentary recess. However, no announcement was forthcoming, and it now seems likely that the Government will not set out its position until Parliament reconvenes at the end of October. Concern that the regime may fall victim to the Government's promise not to increase public spending above previously planned levels for two years has been reinforced by complaints voiced in public by Environment Minister Michael Meacher that his Department had very little room to introduce new initiatives, and by the Government's decision to embark on a comprehensive review of public expenditure (ENDS Report 270, p 28). The new Government cannot be expected to adopt the view of its predecessor that the contaminated land regime does not constitute a new burden on public authorities, which was based on the flimsy grounds that it amounts to little more than a clarification of local authorities' existing powers to tackle land contamination under statutory nuisance legislation. Going on past statements by the local authority associations, the immediate set-up costs of the regime will amount to some GB Pounds 12 million per year. However, this figure may well double within a year or two as councils begin to carry out site investigations and seek legal advice on how liability for clean-up should be apportioned. The biggest unknown is how fast and how far costs will build up as local authorities identify "orphan" sites or those where potentially liable parties invoke the "hardship" clauses in the 1995 Act. Councils may also be pushed by the legislation to identify contaminated sites for which they are liable. Some of these costs may be borne by the supplementary credit approvals programme under which the Government allows local authorities to borrow money to investigate and clean up contaminated sites. The programme allocation this year is GB Pounds 14 million (ENDS Report 269, p 34), rising to GB Pounds 15 million in 1998/9. Some headroom may be created for new forms of expenditure as local authorities complete the remediation of publicly owned landfills and sites now occupied by schools and housing estates, which the programme has been funding since the early 1990s. Nevertheless, the cost of the regime will remain an issue, and there is little scope for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to bid for extra revenue funding for local authorities because of the two-year ceiling on public expenditure. Its only window of opportunity appears to be when the interim findings of the comprehensive spending review are considered by the Cabinet this autumn. But the pessimistic scenario is that the regime will not be brought into force until the end of 1998 at the earliest. A delay of this duration is likely to spell trouble for the ambitious target announced by the Environment Agency in September to "instigate" with other bodies a remediation programme for 1,000 "serious risk" sites by 2001/2. The target assumes that remediation will commence at 50 sites this year and 200 sites in 1998/9 - but without legal powers to back it up the Agency will struggle to achieve this. Reprinted with permission from ENDS Report 272 September 1997 Environmental pollution - The problem lies in the soil One of the great institutional black marks which can be made against any commercial property scheme is that concerning the lack of environmental audit, together with the residuary on cost of cleaning up the site. Pollution is of course a buzzword for the 1990's. Environmental Control a similar phrase. But what of the Standard Form Contracts, say JCT80 and JCT81, how do these deal with "clean up" from the point of view of the Main Contractor ? The answer is that they do not really fully deal with it and one is now used to seeing some fairly extensive bolt-on clauses which make the Main Contractor responsible in terms of price and time for sorting out the environmental cleanliness and stability of the site without any requirement for a variation of any increase in the contract sum or extension of time. Is this fair ? Of course it isn't but that is what institutional money and developer's demand and therefore the Main Contractor should think extremely carefully about how he lays this risk off and of course the next party in the firing line is the structural engineer and perhaps one tier below the structural engineer, if it is not the same firm acting, the geotechnical engineer. It is therefore not uncommon to see phrases confirming that a site will be treated, cleansed etc., to "institutional" levels of acceptability on commercial terms operating in the market of critical importance to this chain of responsibility in laying off the risk is the relevant PI Insurance backing for the design/build contractor, the structural engineer and the geotechnical engineer respectively. Of great concern at the moment is the question of "all claims" insurance -v-aggregate liability insurance and it is the norm that pollution insurance will be in the aggregate, i.e. simply because the risk is difficult to assess and is indivisible in insurance "loss" terms. We all know the great problems when tendering for work on a short time-scale and for contractors trying to react to borehole tests and trial pit tests were information may be difficult to analyse and therefore the job difficult to price in order to lay off all appropriate contamination risk at a price to the geotechnical engineering profession. One has sympathy also for the structural engineer (novated to the Main Contractor) where he finds himself working between a main contractor and geotechnical sub-engineering firm where the geotechnical information is perhaps not as clear or precise as it can be to enable the structural engineer to give precise data, for example on levels of settlement. In order to avoid great confusion and conflict between all the parties and therefore problems in getting clear lines of responsibility, it must be the case that the engineering firm which can offer the structural and geotechnical expertise, without any learning curves or black holes of responsibility arising between the two firms, must be in the best position to get the work in the first place and to cap the risk. Gareth Hevey ACI Arb - Partner Denison Till, Solicitors, Leeds The AGS is pleased to welcome the following new Members:-
Certa is the name of a new company offering contamination assessment and land certification backed by international insurer Allianz/Cornhill. Certa is the result of an industry wide need for reliable and cost effective insurance protection for the risks associated with contaminated land sites. The company was over two years in the research and development stage, including exhaustive studies in the USA, Holland and Germany. Certa's objective has been to create a product which makes brown-field sites more easily transferable. To achieve this it was necessary to create a system of assessment, accepted by a strong internationally recognised insurer which did not require the land to be clean before insurance was available. This is the most significant difference between Certa and all other products on the market. Furthermore, Certa do not require the use of their own environmental consultant or contractor. Rather, the client selects his own consultant and submits to Certa a report suitable for a Phase 1 study enabling Certa to assess the potential risks. In some cases Certa will be able to offer insurance without a site investigation although it is likely an investigation will be carried out. The purpose of the assessment is not to proclaim the land free of contamination or otherwise. Rather, it is to enable the insurers to make a judgement about the risk of such contamination as there may be migrating and causing damage, having regard to the current use of the site. Certa is site specific. The Certa protocol, known as CALC, was devised by an expert panel of environmental specialists led by Dr Bob Leigh, who is Professor of Law and head of the Faculty of Law of the university of Wales and Dr John Bowman CBE, who was the first Chief Executive of the National Rivers Authority (NRA). However, there is no "panel of experts" individually assessing each clients site. CALC is a computerised system which has been developed with the advice of a wide range of leading environmental consultants and no consultant nor company has any privilege or special relationship with Certa. Therefore, there is no risk of breach of confidentiality or of competitors being privy to confidential information. This product is a state of the art development for the insurance of land contamination. It has an impact upon all professional advisers, property owners, property portfolio managers, investment advisers, property developers and financial institutions. The product was developed by Thomas Miller and Company Limited and Cornhill/Allianz, whose expertise in contamination stemmed from over 100 years in the maritime field of management of mutuals for ship owners. Who should buy the Certa Product? Ultimately the land owners and occupiers will be the principal beneficiaries. However, all professional advisers, financial institutions, environmental consultants and contractors, owners, occupiers and investors have their respective interests. The certificate and insurance behind it are transferable and divisible to subsequent owners. The insurance premiums are paid annually in advance and the policy can provide protection for up to 20 years. The protection is against any costs associated with:
A claim is triggered if the insured believes there is contamination on site or if a claim or threat of a claim is made against the insured by a third party. The simplicity of Certa is its strength. Each client can, with their legal advisers, bespoke a programme which suits their purpose. For example, organisations with portfolios of managed property may introduce Certa over a period of time as the properties come up for review by the surveyor/valuer. The portfolio may also be treated as one entity or several parts according to the client's needs. The speed of turn-round of service has been designed to give clients an opportunity of bench-marking the benefits of Certa in the event of unexpected negotiations for land. Reliance will be placed upon the client's own choice of environmental consultant because it will be they that prepare the raw data for submission to Certa. If a consultant is able to provide sufficient information then the Certa process can take as little as 48 hours. Costs The costs for the typical average site will be GB Pounds 1 per GB Pounds 1,000 of the sum insured selected of the sum insured for insurance. Therefore, a sum insured of GB Pounds 1 million will command a premium of GB Pounds 1,000 and a sum insured of GB Pounds 10 million, a premium of GB Pounds 10,000. Actual costs will, of course, vary according to the nature of the site, the investigation, how these measure up to the insurers protocol. Certa recognise the importance of low entry costs and it is possible to obtain an indication of cost without significant expense. Certa is a stand alone product which will secure land values and reduce the risks associated with the transfer of property of contaminated land. Nevertheless, the liabilities associated with property ownership are complex and there are a wide range of existing insurances, such as a general third party liability and property insurances which will have a direct interface with Certa. It would always be advisable to carefully compare products of an apparently similar nature with others in the market and also to seek professional advice in relation to the suitability of the product for any given set of circumstances. R.H. Flaxman, Insurance Consultant, Miller Professional Liabilities Ltd Enviresponse Engineering Services Limited As from 1st July 1997, Fernlea House Limited will operate under the new name of Enviresponse Engineering Services Limited with the following four divisions:
The address, telephone numbers and main contact remain unchanged. Divisional Managing Director, Malcolm Price, explains "The change places all of our engineering services under one banner and reflects the single-source solution approach of the Group as a whole. The company is focused on quality and service and is tailored not only to undertake high quality geotechnical and environmental investigations but also to provide innovative and economic solutions to problems in the ground for the construction industry". Enviresponse Group Managing Director, Bob Blunden comments "this consolidation of the engineering division and the range of specialist services now offered will advance the experience and expertise of the company in its aim to be the first choice provider of engineering services to the construction industry". For further information contact Malcolm Price - Divisional Managing Director on 0181 763 2295 Sheffield University Television - Videos for industry These two new videos use animation and practical demonstration to explain the processes involved in borehole drilling. 'Techniques of borehole drilling' and 'Drilling to sample and monitor groundwater' cover the full range of techniques and sell at GB Pounds 65 per copy (plus p+p). |
