Article Executive

Visa for Geoprofessionals

3rd Apr 2012 - by Ann-Marie Casserly

Tags: Professionals shortage visa

The Shortage Occupation List maintained by the UK Boarder Agency (UKBA) identifies those job titles which are officially considered to be in short supply. Ground Engineering Professionals were added to the list in 2005 and were retained on the list when more rigid and formal procedures were introduced in 2008.

Since 2010 the Government has introduced a number of measures to reduce immigration to the UK and it has become virtually impossible to get a work permit for non-EU nationals unless their job title is on the list. Thanks to the information supplied by Members on each occasion, Ground Engineering occupations have survived reviews in 2009, 2010 and 2011.

The 2011 review was the most difficult to date. It was apparent that there are now fewer Geo-Professionals employed and it is hard to argue that there is a shortage at the relatively inexperienced end of the field where new graduates are sometimes finding it difficult to get their first job. However experienced people remain in short supply – and certain specialist areas (eg tunnelling and hydrogeology) are particularly difficult. As workloads pick up however, the picture is likely to change again, and the emigration of experienced people to Australia and New Zealand suggests the future may be even worse than pre-recession.

What does the Shortage Occupation List look like today for Geo-Professionals?

SOC code 2113 – Physicists, geologists and meteorologists

Only the following job titles are included:
Hydrogeologist; geophysicist; geoscientist; geophysical specialist; engineering geophysicist; engineering geomorphologist; geologist; geochemist; environmental scientist

SOC code 2121 – Civil Engineers

only the following job titles within this occupation are included:
Geotechnical engineers; geotechnical design engineer; geotechnical specialist; reservoir panel engineer; rock mechanics engineer; soil mechanics engineer; geomechanics engineer; tunnelling engineer; (and a number of job titles from the petroleum industry)

UKBA is trying to simplify the list. Our research suggests that most of these job titles could be removed and replaced by: engineering geologist, geotechnical engineer, and tunnelling engineer. We will continue to work towards this.

Finally, if applying for a visa you should be aware that:-

1. When applying for a visa it is ESSENTIAL to use one of the job titles on the list. A job title not on the list will not get a visa.

2. Engineering geologist does NOT currently appear in SOC Code 2113. This is an oversight and until the list is next revised, visa staff at UKBA have been instructed that an engineering geologist is a geologist (and therefore on the list)

3. Civil engineer is not on the list. Some HR departments have interpreted this as meaning that visas are not available for Chartered Engineers and therefore do not make an application. However, geotechnical engineers (and currently variants on this theme) ARE there and CAN get visas.

Article Loss Prevention

PI Requests for Higher Limits of Indemnity

3rd Apr 2012 - by Ann-Marie Casserly

Tags: indemnity insurance

Professional Indemnity Insurance ~ Requests for higher Limits of Indemnity

It is not unusual for Consultants to be faced with a request for a higher limit of indemnity. The limit required may be much higher than the general limit of indemnity usually maintained by the Consultant for their activities. Requests for such higher limits can also be exacerbated by the low level of fee the Consultant may receive for the services, relative to the limit of indemnity being requested by the client. The following sets out some of the common queries relating to higher limits of indemnity.

Do I have to increase cover for all work or can cover be increased on a project specific basis?

It is worth being aware that some Insurers may be prepared to provide an increased limit of indemnity on a project, client or work type specific basis. In some cases, this may provide you with a more cost effective solution to the required increase. However, due to insurers minimum premium levels, there may be no cost benefit to increasing your cover in this way and the cost of increasing cover for all work could be the same as the cost of increasing cover on a project specific basis. Your broker will be able to advise you on what options may be available to you.

Can I pay a one-off premium for the increased limit of indemnity?

It is extremely important to remember that any increase in your limit of indemnity will not just incur a one-off premium for the current policy period. Professional Indemnity insurance (PII) is a ‘claims made’ form of insurance and cover will need to be renewed, to include the increased limit, on an annual basis to cover future claims. When increasing your limit of indemnity, consideration should therefore be given to the long- term costs, as the requirement to maintain a higher limit is likely to run for six or twelve years following completion of your services. Your insurers are likely to require an additional premium for the top-up arrangement long after the fees for the project have been received and these long-term additional costs should be given consideration in your fee bid.

My contract requires me to maintain the increased limit of indemnity for 12 years following completion of my services, how much will this cost?

It is impossible to predict the future cost of PII premiums as the cost of insurance can fluctuate from one year to the next. Premiums will be affected by claims experience and future capacity in the insurance market and allowance should be made for possible future premium increases when looking at the long-term potential costs of maintaining higher limits of indemnity.

Although it will not absolve you from any liability to the client, any contractual requirement to maintain PII should be made subject to its continuing availability in the UK market at commercially reasonable rates.

The above is a general overview only and for specific advice on increasing your limit of indemnity please contact your professional indemnity insurance broker.

Griffiths & Armour Professional Risks
Sarah McNeill

Article Business Practice Executive

University Meets Industry

3rd Dec 2011 - by Ann-Marie Casserly

Tags: courses Engineering Geotechnical Universities

Engineering Geology and Geotechnical Engineering MSc courses – what is the problem?

A recent meeting arranged by the AGS on behalf of The Ground Forum brought together academics and industry representatives in order to better understand the problems and pressures facing MSc courses and the impact that these will have on the ground engineering sector’s need for qualified and competent professionals.

There are currently 15 universities in the UK offering courses in subjects that would qualify as ground engineering. Several courses have closed in the past few years – including courses in hydrogeology, even though experienced hydrogeologists are in short supply.

So what is the problem?

University Finance: All courses are under pressure to diversify income, and Government support is now heavily biased towards research and research degrees. Most universities now have a strategy in place to improve research income and increase PhD recruitment. MSc courses continue – but only if they are profitable.

Student Numbers: To be self sustaining an MSc course needs 16 or more students. In the past student numbers were limited by a shortage of students completing first degrees in civil engineering and geology. This problem has been resolved to some extent in recent years but has been replaced by new difficulties:-

4 year MEng and MSci Courses: How likely is it that someone who has spent 4 years obtaining a Masters degree in civil engineering or geology will want to do a further year in order to qualify as an engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer? Yet universities have confirmed that 4 year first degree courses do not contain sufficient ground engineering to make someone proficient in this area.
Increasing Fees: The rise in undergraduate tuition fees is likely to have three effects relevant to this discussion:
- decrease in undergraduate enrolment
- increased levels of student debt
- a corresponding rise in the cost of postgraduate course fees
  A survey by Birmingham University of students who enrolled for an MSc course but withdrew before it began (‘non-arrivals’) revealed that finance was a significant factor. When Leeds University increased course fees to £5,000 this year, there was a 40% drop in enrolments. MSc fees next year could rise to £12,000…..
Withdrawal of Grants: NERC and EPSRC funding ended some time ago. There are now almost no grants available for MSc ground engineering students – and course fees must be paid at the door!

The problem is compounded by the relatively poor pay for ground engineers and the lower status of engineers in the UK (compared to Europe and elsewhere).

Can Industry Help?
The message that went back to Universities from Industry was – not much at present. Companies already sponsor students and prizes; provide research projects and facilities for MSc dissertations and PhD research; make visiting lecturers available; contribute to industry sponsored bursaries; provide work experience. Some do more than others, and some would do more if Universities were more adept at making and fostering relationships with companies. But the realities of the economic situation at present make increasing financial support a non-starter.

A number of universities offer flexible courses (eg part time, or block release courses and even distance learning). These are welcomed and there is scope to increase them and make them more suited to employers requirements. Closer liaison between academia and industry could improve both the suitability of courses (place, time, structure) and the usefulness of the courses (subject matter and research).

Where to go from here?

One of the most positive results from the meeting was that academics were brought together and agreed to form their own alliance for future contact with the ground industry. This alliance is expected to meet regularly with representatives from The Ground Forum Members (eg AGS, BDA, BGA, FPS, GeolSoc, PJA, and others) to explore innovative ways to ensure that courses continue, and that they meet the needs of employers.

The Ground Forum will also consider whether there are ways of fulfilling its skills needs other than an MSc. This would not be with the intention of abandoning the MSc as a qualification, but to widen the diversity of options available through training, very possibly delivered by Universities, but leading to certificates and diplomas rather than a second degree.

The Ground Forum has lobbied for Government recognition of the importance of ground engineering and the need for ground engineers. It will continue to do so via a meeting of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee at the end of February 2012, and via an article in Science in Parliament that will emphasise the contribution that ground engineering makes to the economy and to emphasise the need for Government Departments that make use of ground engineering skills (eg DEFRA, DEC, BIS, etc) to also fund training and to understand the relationship between margins and industries ability to support its own professional development needs.

Finally
During the meeting it was agreed that both parties are missing opportunities to support each other and develop more effective communication. Universities have a communication network that includes both past and present students. Industry has recruitment needs –for permanent positions but also for short term and temporary posts which could be facilitated by the university network. Students benefit from work placements and work experience – and the company that provides it has an opportunity to assess them and their capabilities for future employment. Similarly, companies providing dissertation projects benefit from cost effective research, and the possibility of future employees. Expect to hear more of this in 2012 …..

Article Loss Prevention

What is Material Risk? Asbestos in Soil

3rd Dec 2011 - by Ann-Marie Casserly

Tags: Asbestos exposure soil

The risk of harm arising from asbestos left in soil is one which has only recently been identified. We do not yet have any legal cases arising from this type of exposure but asbestos itself has a very bad history in the workplace. There are reputed to be 4000 asbestos related deaths per year.

Consequently there are many civil cases, some appealed to the Supreme Court recently, which have given guidelines as to the way the courts view the assessment of that risk, and how they may evaluate the causal risks of asbestos in soil.

There will be two general types of claims (possibly group claims), those for property damage and those for damage to health. These will be assessed under the civil law of negligence, but there will be differences for each type of claim in proving the liabilities and the causal links between the damage and the negligence. For property claims, the process is the standard approach for negligence, but for the human health cases, the courts recognise the special circumstances of asbestos exposure and impose a lower burden of proof on the claimant.

Remember that the claimants have not only to have been exposed, but in England and Wales to have progressed to full blown mesothelioma, not just the pleural plaques which precede it (as is the case in Scotland). The claimants also have to prove that the exposure was negligent. This means that not all exposure victims will have legal claims.

Then the claimants have to prove that the negligent exposure caused their condition. This is fundamental to all claims in negligence; you have to prove that the negligence specifically caused the damage which you suffered. However this is so difficult in cases of asbestos exposure that the courts have made an exception for such cases.

The House of Lords decided the claimants did not have to prove which negligent source or which defendant caused the problem, only that the negligent exposure of the defendant had materially increased the risk of the disease for the claimant.

The Compensation Act 2006 amended the rule to provide that each negligent defendant would be independently and equally jointly liable, no matter how much exposure they were individually liable for. But the duty did not become a statutory duty; the process is still evaluated under the common law of tort.

In 2007, the Court of Appeal considered whether material exposure could be quantified as a doubling of the risk but decided that for mesothelioma, it could not, because it would contravene the Compensation Act which talked only of “material“ risk. So material means less than a doubling of the risk. But how much is “material”?

Cases so far have all been employers’ liability claims. This year, the Supreme Court heard two claims together, concerning different types of exposure, one low level long term at work at an increase of only 18%, and the other a single instance, when as a student, school buildings were being constructed. The court held that this test applies even here to these limited exposures.

How low can the risk be before it is not material? We do not know this as yet. But there will come a time when the exposure will be seen as too insignificant to be taken into account. Lord Phillips said in the Willmore case: “I doubt whether “material risk” is ever possible to define, in quantitative terms, what for the purposes of the application of any principle of law, is de minimis. This must be a question for the judge on the facts of the particular case. In the case of mesothelioma, a stage must be reached at which, even allowing for the possibility that exposure to asbestos can have a cumulative effect, a particular exposure is too insignificant to be taken into account, having regard to the overall exposure that has taken place.”

Scientific advances as to the cause of the disease might give us a clearer view, and the law will respond to this. Lord Phillips also said“(the 2006 act)does not preclude the common law from identifying exceptions to the “material increase of risk” test, nor from holding, as more is learned about mesothelioma, that the material increase of risk test no longer applies.”

Watch this space.

Article Business Practice Executive

UK Registration of Ground Engineering Professionals (RoGEP)

3rd Dec 2011 - by Ann-Marie Casserly

Tags: engineer ground register RoGEP

In June 2011, a new initiative for ground engineers was launched in the United Kingdom, after nearly ten years of discussions between the professional institutions and trade organisations within the UK ground engineering industry. Unlike the US and other countries, the UK does not have a professional engineer licensing regime, and the title “engineer” is not protected by legislation. However, professional engineers can achieve “chartered status” through their professional institution and the Engineering Council, which is recognised worldwide.

The key drivers for this initiative were the recognised need from client bodies in the UK to help them to appoint competent engineers, those who are appropriately qualified, skilled and experienced chartered ground engineers. To fulfil these needs, the three most prominent professional bodies, the Institute of Civil Engineers (ICE), the Geological Society of London, and the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining (IOM3)- which incorporate ground engineering and represent this aspect of the profession in the United Kingdom- together with the Ground Forum, have finalised the UK Register of Ground Engineering Professionals (RoGEP). This register will be open to applications from chartered members, with a ground engineering background, of these three professional bodies. The Ground Forum ‘umbrella’ body for the ground engineering sector, and brings together five learned societies and four trade associations that represent construction related ground engineering disciplines.

This Register provides stakeholders, including clients and other professionals, with a means to identify individuals who are suitably qualified and competent in ground engineering be they consultants, contractors, public bodies or academia. The Register also provides a means of demonstrating ground engineering competency. RoGEP requires certain competencies for the roles of Ground Engineering Professional, Ground Engineering Specialists’ and Ground Engineering Adviser. These have been included in the second edition of the Site Investigation Steering Group documents along with other future specifications, codes, standards and guidance documents.

A Ground Engineering Professional, Ground Engineering Specialist and Ground Engineering Adviser may be involved in various disciplines or on various projects that fall within the broad heading of ground engineering and must have an appreciation of other disciplines and interests that extend beyond, but may interface with , ground engineering. They must also be able to demonstrate how ground engineering interacts with other technical professions.

The RoGEP panel has developed a methodology and a set of procedures for assessing capability and experience for ground engineers that enables progression from the initial Professional grade through the intermediate grade of Specialist to the senior Adviser grade. This progression provides a pathway for young chartered engineers to develop in this branch of engineering.

For information visit www.ukrogep.org.uk

Article Business Practice Laboratories

Eurocode 7 the Attachments

1st Aug 2011 - by Ann-Marie Casserly

Tags: Eurocode 7 Geotechnical Investigations

An update on progress

John Powell – Technical Director Geolabs and Independent Consultant
David Norbury – Independent Consultant

We trust that by now all readers are aware that, in addition to the two parts of Eurocode 7*, there are a number of other Standards which are required to make up the complete set for use in ground investigations and geotechnical design practice. There are the National Annexes that go with the two parts, and then there are a number of attachments which are called up in Eurocode 7 Part 2. These are not all yet available, and this article provides an update on the current position in 2011.

A number of the Standards have been published and implemented into UK practice, as listed in Table 1. At the same time as implementation, the corresponding parts of any conflicting BS have been withdrawn, hence Clauses 3.2 and 3.3 of BS 1377 Part 9 no longer exist and should not be referred to in specification, practice or reporting and BS5930 has undergone two sets of amendments as highlighted in Table 1

Table 1 Standards published and implemented at the time of writing

Standard number	Coverage of Standard	Comment
BS EN ISO 22475/1	Sampling and groundwater measurement	Implemented. Changes incorporated in BS5930+A2
BS 22475/2	Qualification of enterprises and personnel	Now published as normative British Standards.
BS 22475/3	Conformity assessment of enterprises and personnel	Now published as normative British Standards.
BS EN ISO 22476/2	Dynamic probing	Implemented Clauses 3.2 and 3.3 of BS 1377 Part 9 withdrawn. Changes incorporated in BS5930+A2
BS EN ISO 22476/3	Standard Penetration test
BS EN ISO 22476/10 (TS)	Weight sounding test	Implemented; not widely used in UK
BS EN ISO 22476/11 (TS)	Flat dilatometer test	Implemented; not widely used in UK
BS EN ISO 22476/12	Mechanical CPT	Implemented but no action as no precedent BS
BS EN ISO 14688/1	Soil description	Implemented. Changes incorporated in BS5930+A2
BS EN ISO 14688/2	Soil classification
BS EN ISO 14689/1	Rock description and classification

That is a total 11 standards to date that are available for use in the UK. The implementation of these has not been straightforward and some key issues will require further work at national and European level.

However, the story does not end there as a number of other Standards listed in Table 2 have now been drafted, commented upon and have finalised text and are due to be published shortly, and possibly this year.

Table 2 Standards that will shortly be published

Standard number	Coverage of Standard
22476 – Field testing	/1 Electrical Cone and piezocone penetration tests /4 Ménard Pressuremeter /5 Flexible dilatometer /6 Self boring p/meter /7 Borehole Jacking test /8 Full displacement p/meter /9 Field vane test
22282 – Geohydraulic tests	/1 General rules /2 Water permeability test in borehole without packer /3 Water pressure test in rock /4 Pumping tests /5 Infiltrometer tests /6 Closed packer systems

This list comprises a further 13 standards that will need to be implemented into national practice within 6 months of publication. That will require a major effort by industry at a time of difficult trading conditions. This is not a happy coincidence in timing.

There are also a number of other Standards, (20 or so) which are further from publication, but which are called up in EC7 Part 2. The date of publication of these Standards is not known, but is likely to be within two to three years.

And that is still not the end of the story. Work has begun in other areas of investigation and testing on Standards which are not, at this stage, referred to in Eurocode Part 2; that omission will be corrected as the Standards are published.
The UK mirror committee (B/526/3) is charged with the implementation of all these Standards in a timely manner, but we cannot do this alone. We can publish news editorial as the above listed Standards come into circulation, but we need the help of industry. In particular, we aim to encourage volunteers to digest and publish critical but helpful summaries of the new Standards. This was carried out for those Standards already implemented (22476/2 and 22476/3, 14688/1, 14688/2 and 14689/1) and the relevant articles were published in Ground Engineering. The take up of these was still slow, and we will all need to do better in the years to come. The main reason for this is that if we do not implement smoothly and rapidly we will be operating parallel systems of old and new. This will be inefficient and cause errors and misunderstandings.

Finally, readers should note that there are maintenance and feedback systems in place for getting standards corrected and amended. This is not an easy or rapid process, but if you have any critical comments please submit these officially to BSI (cc to authors) and they will find their way to B/526/3 for action. It is not intended that the Eurocodes and the attachments will be fossilised as at the time of publication, and so UK industry can provide a positive lead in Europe to making these Standards better.

NOTE to READERS – amendments to the DP and SPT EN ISO Standards are shortly to be published; whilst the changes in these align closer to UK practice,keep your eyes open for these and other changes.
*Note that Corrigenda have been issued for both Part 1 (2009) and Part 2 (2010) of EC7

Article Contaminated Land Data Management Laboratories

NHBC’s Role in Developing Hazardous Sites

1st Aug 2011 - by Ann-Marie Casserly

Tags: brownfield data Investigations NHBC

NHBC (National House-Building Council) is the standard setting body and the leading warranty and insurance provider for new and newly converted homes in the UK. Our role is to work with the house-building and wider construction industry to provide warranty, risk management and compliance services that raise the standards of new homes, and to provide consumer protection to new homebuyers.

Approximately 80% of new homes built in the UK each year are registered with NHBC and benefit from our 10-year warranty and insurance policy called Buildmark. Around 1.6 million homes are currently covered by Buildmark policies and over the past 40 years, NHBC has protected more than 30% of all existing homes in the UK.

In 1999 Buildmark was extended to provide the homeowner with protection cover against the issue of a statutory notice. This was done in the anticipation of Part 2A, which came into force a year later.

The NHBC Foundation

The NHBC Foundation was launched in 2006 in partnership with the BRE Trust. Its remit is to provide the necessary data and intelligence to develop long-term solutions to industry challenges which lie ahead and lead debate and thinking among industry experts. The NHBC Foundation facilitates research and development, and shares pragmatic and relevant guidance and good practice to the homebuilding industry.

Though much of the NHBC Foundation’s research is focused on the challenges of the Government’s 2016 zero carbon homes target, published works do include ground related issues such as ground source heat pumps, the risks associated with basement construction and the efficient design of piling for housing.

NHBC Standards

The 2011 NHBC Standards, effective from 1 January 2011, introduced for the first time a new chapter for low or zero carbon technologies (Chapter 3.1). It also included an update to Chapter 4.1 – Land quality on managing ground conditions, and a major update to Chapter 4.6 – Vibratory and ground improvement techniques, as well as reference to the introduction of Eurocodes in place of British Standards.

The latest update to the NHBC Standards continues our corporate mission to work with the house-building and wider construction industry to provide guidance, inspection and technical services to raise the standard of new build UK homes to protection homeowners. The identification of geotechnical risk assessment and the implementation of robust site investigations and geotechnical and remediation designs are therefore essential to NHBC, our developer customers and ultimately the homeowner.

Chapter 4.1 Land quality – managing ground conditions

Chapter 4.1 was first published in 1998 and, since that time, few changes have been made. The Chapter has now been updated to reflect recent technical changes and developments, made to reflect the changes to British Standards and the development of European Standards. It now includes technical guidance produced since the Chapter was last revised and better aligns the process for assessing contaminated land with the Government’s guidance document CLR 11 (Contaminated Land Report 11): Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (2004).

Chapter – CH4.6 Vibratory ground improvement techniques

The update to Chapter 4.6 reflects changes and innovations in ground improvement techniques. It outlines current industry practice, provides additional guidance on the suitability of ground to be treated, clarifies the objective of vibro treatment, and updates the range of suitable stone fill for vibro column materials by permitting the use of suitable recycled aggregates. It now also references Eurocode EC7 (BS EN 1997 – Geotechnical Design).

The new Standards reflect the EU wide transition to Eurocodes for the design of structural elements following the withdrawal of the existing British Standards in March 2010. It is proposed that the Building Regulations in England and Wales will be revised in 2013, with the structural Eurocodes becoming the standard reference document for demonstrating compliance. In the interim, the Public Contract Regulations 2006 require Eurocodes to be used for the design and construction of publically funded building projects.

For geotechnically challenging sites, such as those where vibro improvement, piling or engineered fill is required, the management of geotechnical risk is likely to be enhanced by adherence to EC7. Additionally, in the UK, the British Standard for Earthworks (BS6031:2009) has also been extensively revised and is now compatible with the Eurocodes. These documents set out the requirements for assessing the geotechnical suitability of the ground for development and the execution of stabilisation works and foundations.

Some of the changes include:

References to the 15 kPa absolute limit on soft clay strength has been dropped
The 30 kPa limit on soft clays is maintained as not being generally acceptable unless the suitability of the treatment can be demonstrated, taking due account of the impact of group effects, ground heave and settlement
Requirement to consider inundation settlement risk issues of poorly compacted fill
Requirement to consider surcharging settlement effects
References to chalk or clay fills have been omitted and replaced with the generic ‘loose or un-engineered fills’
Requirement to consider effects on ground gas and contamination
Recycled aggregates can be used subject to compliance with BRE Digest 433 or other suitable guidance, such as WRAP
Validation testing is required of treated ground to confirm that the proposed load-settlement performance has been achieved
Requirement to produce validation reports confirming that the proposed load settlement performance of treated ground has been achieved
Clarification that plate load tests on stone columns alone are not acceptable to NHBC for treatment validation

Land Quality Endorsement (LQE)

For housing developments on major Brownfield sites requiring significant geotechnical and contamination remediation, NHBC has increasingly noted that many of the sites developed for housing in the UK are remediated by specialist remediation companies, landowners, private developers, regeneration specialists, development agencies and similar companies.

These organisations are responsible for or own contaminated land and are remediating them for residential development. However, they are not themselves NHBC registered builders or developers, and are therefore outside NHBC risk management processes and may not be aware of NHBC’s requirements.

NHBC introduced Land Quality Endorsement (LQE) in 2005 as a consultancy service providing technical risk management for sites being remediated befoere residential development. LQE allows the assessment of contaminated and brownfield sites against the requirements of the NHBC Standards.

This determines the suitability of these sites for Buildmark cover in advance of the formal registration of residential properties. Sites are assessed against the requirements of NHBC Standards Chapter 4.1, including a review of geotechnical and foundation proposals alongside contamination assessments.

The pre-registration assessment of sites affected by contamination and the remediation adopted will potentially enhance the marketability of a site by reducing the potential risks to the builder or developer, whilst saving time and effort.

Article Contaminated Land Laboratories Loss Prevention Safety

Asbestos PII Update

1st Aug 2011 - by Ann-Marie Casserly

Tags: Asbestos cover indemnity

The subject of asbestos cover is one that has been in the spotlight for many years since the restriction (and in some cases the complete withdrawal) of professional indemnity insurance (PII) cover for asbestos risks in 2002/03.

Wider cover is now available in the PII market to those consultancy firms that might inadvertently come across asbestos in the normal course of their activities, although it will not usually be offered to those firms undertaking asbestos inspections.

In the past, cover has generally only been available for negligence claims in respect of the direct cost of remediation or diminution in value of property due to the presence of asbestos. Any indirect costs, such as consequential delay costs, would have been excluded. With a few exceptions, cover can now be obtained for any asbestos related negligence claims regardless of whether the loss in question relates directly to remediation or diminution in value, and cover will therefore extend to cover economic and consequential losses. The exceptions relate to bodily injury claims and claims relating to property located outside the United Kingdom (including the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man) and the Republic of Ireland, which continue to be generally excluded.

Those firms undertaking ‘management’ and ‘refurbishment or demolition’ surveys as described in the Health and Safety Executive guide HSG264 (previously known as type I, II or III asbestos surveys) or similar surveys are unlikely to qualify for the wider cover and will need to negotiate specific cover with their insurers or approach a specialist provider. Consultants with UKAS accreditation should note that UKAS requires Accredited Bodies to carry asbestos cover for bodily injury claims and this is available to such bodies via specialist markets. If you require assistance with this, then please do not hesitate to contact Griffiths & Armour using the contact details below.

For those consultants who may appoint sub-consultants to undertake asbestos inspections on their behalf it is worth remembering that, in the eyes of the law, you are fully responsible for their actions and any claim that arises from work they may have undertaken is likely to expose the consultant’s PII policy in the first instance. If you are appointing third parties to undertake asbestos inspections then you should check the terms of your PII policy to ensure that you are adequately protected.

The scope of cover provided under PII policies can vary considerably and if you are in any doubt about the extent of asbestos cover under your own PII policy you should consult with your broker for further advice.

Griffiths & Armour Professional Risks
0151 600 2071

Article Contaminated Land Laboratories

Asbestos in Soil

1st Aug 2011 - by Ann-Marie Casserly

Tags: airborne Asbestos caution Guidance HSE

The AGS is active in establishing industry guidance for asbestos in soils. The CLWG and LPWG have formed a small sub-group to discuss what guidance and advice should be provided for our Members, and to contribute to the work that is currently being undertaken by other groups and associations on this issue. This article is intended to give Members an awareness of the present situation; what has happened, what is being done and what may be happening in the future. It has been suggested that many of our members, while insured for investigating and providing advice on contaminants, have specific exclusions to their professional indemnity policies in regard to claims relating to asbestos, and this may possibly have indirectly led to a lack of training and awareness about the risks of asbestos in soils.

LEGAL ASPECTS
Attempts by government agencies and independent organisations to define “safe” or “minimal risk” threshold concentration values, either for fibres in soil or for fibres in air, have been thwarted by the scientific evidence that death can be caused by a single fibre.

The current legal rule in relation to Mesothelioma is that any “material increase in risk” is sufficient for legal liability. In a recent appeal court ruling the exposure was judged to be just 18% higher than background levels.

REGULATIONS
The UK, in 1931, was the first country to establish laws regulating exposure to asbestos, primarily to protect the health of factory workers.

Currenty UK Statute is dominated by the Control of Asbestos Regulations (CAR) 2006 which were implemented under the provisions of the 1974 Heath and Safety at Work Act and bring together the three previous sets of Regulations covering the prohibition of asbestos, the control of asbestos at work and asbestos licensing. However, while these regulations are relevant for asbestos in soil, they do not define limits or best practice and there is currently no specific published guidance from either the HSE or the Environment Agency.

TRAINING
The British Occupational Hygiene Society (BOHS) have a series of asbestos-related proficiency qualifications that cover the identification, sampling and management of Asbestos in Buildings.
The development of specific training and qualifications for the contaminated land industry is being actively considered by various bodies and will need to include consideration of the following issues

background of asbestos; including health effects
recognition of debris in soil that may contain asbestos
procedures to be followed when soil that may contain asbestos is identified
safe packaging, labelling and handling of soil samples that may contain asbestos
the nature of operations that could result in exposure to asbestos
proper use, handling and disposal of personal protective equipment (PPE)
personnel decontamination
equipment cleaning

FIELDWORK and SITE WORK MANAGEMENT
All personnel either organising fieldwork or inspecting and/or handling suspected asbestos-contaminated soil or being exposed to soil-disturbing activities at sites where there is a risk of asbestos-contaminated soil being encountered must be able to demonstrate an appropriate level of awareness of the risks associated with asbestos-contaminated soil.

The first step is to identify the potential for asbestos at a site by studying the site history and to exercise an appropriate level of caution. Asbestos may be expected within the demolition rubble from former buildings, in association with buried heating pipework and ducts, or simply within fly-tipped materials. Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) have been in use since 1834 but were most widely used between the 1950’s and the 1980’s. The use of ACMs was not banned until 1999.

The potential for fibre release from ACM in damp soil may be limited, but if the site is dry and dusty, fibres may readily become airborne.

In addition to artificially damping down dust down drilling or trial pitting activities, the following PPE can be considered:

Boots that can be easily washed down.

Disposable overalls(type 5) fitted with a hood
High efficiency disposable particulate air respirator (FFP3)

Disposable Gloves
Goggles

Any suspect fibrous material or any cement / board type products which have evidence of fibres within them should be considered to potentially contain asbestos and samples must be taken for subsequent laboratory confirmation. All samples should be double-bagged with both the sample container and outer bag labelled as potentially containing asbestos so that the laboratory can take all the necessary precautions to prevent exposure to their staff.

Asbestos may occur as:

Sprayed coatings and wrapped lagging used for thermal & fire protection,
Insulating boards, wallboards and ceiling tiles used for fire protection, thermal and acoustic insulation
Profiled and flat roofing sheets, partitioning boards and decking tiles
Bitumen products, mastic pads, roofing felts gutter linings
Ropes and yarns
Cloth mats, fire blankets
Millboard and paper, general heat insulation
Flooring, thermoplastic, PVC floor tiles, mastics, sealants etc
Textured coatings e.g. artex
Bakelite

LABORATORY ANALYSIS
Unless a formal screening is requested by the person commissioning the laboratory testing, the laboratory will simple carry out a visual check. There is an issue here in that a large proportion of soil samples are put through laboratories without any formal screening and it has been conjectured that significant percentages of made ground samples are passing through both geotechnical and analytical laboratories with undetected asbestos.

Most labs provide a tiered approach involving screening, identification and quantification:

Basic screening: examined under an optical microscope with magnification of x2 to x5
Detailed screening: ditto with magnification of x10 to x40
Identification: Polarised Light or Phase Contrast Microscopy (PLM or PCOM)
Quantification: Gravimetric (typical LoD 0.1%) *
Quantification: Sedimentation and Fibre Counting (typical LoD 0.001%)

*The Gravimetric quantification method is currently being phased out.
EXISTING GUIDANCE
Current UK workplace regulations for asbestos in air have a single Control Limit (max. concentration of fibres in the air averaged over a 4 hr period) for all types of asbestos of 0.1 fibres per cm³ (100 000 f/m³). The World Health Organisation indicate that 1000 f/m³ is associated with a 10-6 to 10-5 risk of lung cancer in a population where 30% are smokers and 10-5 to 10-4 risk of Mesothelioma.

ICRCL Guidance Note 64/85 “Asbestos on Contaminated Sites” (1990) is still the most current guidance for asbestos in soil and suggest asbestos fibres should be <0.001% w/w.

Waste Soil containing >0.1% w/w asbestos is classified as hazardous waste.

The key issue in assessing risks from asbestos in soil relates to modelling the exposure. It is not possible to use the CLEA model to calculate exposure and no reliable quantitative relationships between factors which affect asbestos fibre concentration in air and asbestos concentrations in soil are known.

There is some consensus between the UK (ICRCL), Dutch and Australian Guidance on the use of a threshold of 0.001% as a threshold for asbestos in soil. The Dutch Guidelines consider the risk from Chrysotile to be ten times less than Amphibole asbestos but the HSE, WHO, the Australian DoH and the USEPA have chosen not to distinguish between different asbestos fibre types.

For bound asbestos there is recognition that the potential generation of asbestos fibres is much lower and hence Dutch and Australian guidance use a threshold ten times higher than that for friable asbestos.

The USEPA use a method based on direct measurement during vigorous activity to assess the soil by measuring ambient air concentrations. A measurement approach is also used in the Dutch guidance.

New Guidance
It is believed that the Environment Agency and the HSE have in recent years collaborated to prepare new draft guidance for asbestos in soils in the form of a document entitled ‘A Study to Derive Soil Guideline Values for Asbestos in Soil’.

It was rumoured that this draft guidance recommended use of a strategy based on the Dutch approach for the assessment of soil contamination with asbestos. However, the EA have seemed reluctant to publish this document, and despite a recent Freedom of Information request by the EIC it is now not expected to emerge, being instead superceded by a forthcoming update to the HSE document HSG248 (2005) ‘Asbestos: The analysts’ guide for sampling, analysis and clearance procedures’. Public consultation on this HSE document is awaited.

THE FUTURE
The AGS are supporting a current EIC incentive to develop best practice industry guidance with input from the EA / HSE / HSL/ BOHS and CL:Aire. A CIRIA project has also been launched with similar goals so we may at present end up with two (or more!) pieces of industry guidance. For the immediate future there is planned to be a workshop organised by CL:Aire in association with EIC & BOHS at the Manchester Conference centre on the 1st November 2011.

Article Laboratories

On Stony Ground

1st Aug 2011 - by Ann-Marie Casserly

Tags: analysis laboratories

How standardised is MCerts analysis in stony samples?

Despite articles such as that by Mark Perrin (Ground Engineering, April 2007), many engineers, consultants and regulators still appear to be largely ignorant of the differences in soil sample preparation methods between laboratories and the effect this can have on the results produced. Many assume that the MCerts accreditation commonly required by Local Authorities and the Environment Agency has ‘standardised’ laboratory analysis such that the reported contaminant concentration will be that of the soil tested without any significant variance. Unfortunately, whilst the MCerts scheme focuses on quality procedures to ensure repeatability within an individual laboratory, it does not standardise the test method itself, and thus variations between laboratories remain.

The MCerts scheme requires comparison trials between labs to be carried out on a standard homogeneous matrix, which generally produces a high degree of comparability between laboratories; unfortunately most soils that are sent for analysis tend not to be like this homogeneous matrix. Typically most analysis is carried out on samples of near surface made ground which is by its very nature largely heterogeneous, and usually with a high stone content. As an extract can not be produced from the stones, sample preparation including either grinding of the stones to a fine powder or excluding them such that the sub-sampling uncertainty can be reduced or eliminated. However, the methods adopted to achieve this are by no means standardised between laboratories.

How do laboratory methods vary?
All commercial laboratories with MCerts accreditation for PAHs and toxic metals were asked about their sample preparation methods. Responses were received from 18 of these laboratories with 17 being accredited for metals and 17 for PAH. A surprising number of laboratory managers were unsure of the sample preparation method and had to check their procedures before being able to reply; however the responses received are summarised below;

Metals	No of labs using this method	Percent of labs that responded
Dry and crush to less than 0.5mm	8	47%
Remove stones greater than 2mm diameter	2	12%
Remove Stones Greater than 10mm diameter	6	35%
Remove all ‘inert’ stones	1	6%

For metals the main difference appears to be whether the stones are removed or are crushed and when removed what size stones are removed. However, with PAH a greater range of sample preparation methods were apparent;

PAH	No of labs using this method	Percent of labs that responded
Test as received sample but avoiding stones	8	47%
Dry and crush to less than 0.5mm	4	24%
Remove Stones Greater than 2mm diameter	2	12%
Remove Stones Greater than 4.75mm diameter	1	6%
Remove Stones Greater than 10mm diameter	2	12%

Of those labs that dried the samples, two did so at 28 ^oC, five at 30 ^oC, one at 35 ^oC and one at 37 ^oC. Variation in the extraction solvent was also apparent as set out below.

Extraction solvent for PAH analysis	No of labs using this method	Percent of labs that responded
Dichloromethane (DCM)	13	76%
DCM & Hexane	1	6%
Hexane:Acetone	2	12%
Pentane	1	6%

This variation has been further complicated recently, as during the recent recession, the partial shut down of the car industry reduced the demand for foam rubber, a bi-product of the production of which is DCM. Therefore the price of DCM rose significantly and several laboratories switched from using pure DCM to a mix of DCM and hexane or acetone or even hexane:acetone:triethylamine. Once the car industry recovered and the price of DCM fell these laboratories reverted back to using pure DCM.

What are the effects of variation in preparation methods?

In a soil where the contaminant concentration is distributed evenly between the matrix and the stone content, removing or crushing the stones would clearly have no effect on analysis results. However, where the metallic contaminants are expected to be concentrated in the coarser particles, as in a slag or clinker, crushing of the stones will produce a higher contaminant concentration than would be produced in a laboratory that removes the stones. Similarly, as the bulk of the made ground which is present in garden areas that have been used for a considerable period will have been subject to bonfires and the active digging in of ash, part burnt fragments of coal or timber are common. Such relatively coarse fragments could be expected to be a source of PAH (including benzo(a)pyrene) and therefore a sample which was crushed prior to analysis could be expected to yield a higher concentration than one from which the larger particles had been removed. Conversely, where the burning of painted wood has resulted in elevated lead concentrations in a fine ash, or where soot has been dug into the soil, the presence of natural stones in the sample will act to ‘dilute’ the measured concentration if they are crushed during the analysis rather than removed.. However where the weight of the stones removed is back-calculated into the reported result this effect should be eliminated.

In addition to the effect of stone content, where a sample is dried the variation in drying time and temperature will surely have an effect upon the more volatile compounds such as naphthalene which could be lost to some extent, especially where the sample is dried overnight at 37oC. The reported naphthalene concentration of a dried and crushed sample would thus be expected to be lower than that of a sample tested in the as received condition.

The variation in extraction efficiency of the different solvents and solvent mixes would also be expected to induce variability.

So which is the right method?
Unfortunately, there is no right or wrong method of analysis, as the applicability of each method is dependent on the use to which the results are to be put, which is beyond the control of the laboratory. The onus therefore ,has to be placed upon the consultant scheduling the testing and interpreting the results to use an appropriate method.

For example; waste classification is based upon a hazard assessment and the analysis is required to be representative of the whole load being disposed of, and thus a dried and crushed approach may be applicable. However, for human health a risk based assessment is adopted and thus consideration needs to be given to the likely exposure pathways.

For Benzo(a)Pyrene some 56% of the total exposure for the residential land use arises from the ingestion of soil and indoor dust. As soil Pica has not been included as an exposure route in the CLEA model, the bulk of the ingestion of soil will be from accidental ingestion from hand to mouth contact and as such larger particles are unlikely to be involved. Similarly, dermal contact, which amounts to 36% of the total exposure for the residential land use is unlikely to be significantly affected by the larger particles which will have a far lower surface area to volume ratio. Therefore, for a Benzo(a)Pyrene risk assessment, an analysis of the fine particles following sieving and the exclusion of the stone content from the calculated results would appear to be far more appropriate. This would also be the case with the majority of the PAHs and toxic metals.

Conclusions
Engineers and consultants scheduling laboratory analyses need to be aware of the sample preparation method that is to be adopted by the laboratory and the effect that this will have on the results for the specific soil which is being tested. It would also be helpful if laboratories published a basic summary of the sample preparation method along with the results to aid those interpreting the results and to assist where comparisons between different sets of data on the same site are being carried out, be it by different laboratories or by the same laboratory over a prolonged period. Furthermore, when the chemical analyses indicate that the soil in a garden contains contaminant concentrations close to or a little in excess of the adopted threshold values, it would be worth considering the effect of the sample preparation method and whether retesting a sieved sample may produce a more appropriate concentration to compare with the adopted threshold, considering the assumed critical exposure pathways.

Mike Plimmer
GEA Associates

Article Contaminated Land Laboratories

BS 10175 Updated

1st Aug 2011 - by Ann-Marie Casserly

Tags: contamination Geoenvironmental Geotechnical risks

BS 10175:2011 (Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites – Code of Practice) was published in March 2011. It is much improved compared to the 2001 version both in content and the way that guidance and information is presented. It meets the initial brief for the revision and has also addressed a number of other issues (see Box). There have been many changes and those familiar with the old version should not assume that they know what the new version says. It must be read, pondered on, and digested.
Unfortunately, there is no reason to expect those who ignored the old version to pay any more attention to the new one unless induced to do so by regulators and informed potential clients. Contamination has been an issue for at least 35 years (the Greater London Council first published guidance in 1976) but we still see reports that would have been regarded as poor thirty years ago. The bottom end is as bad as it ever was. Some reports proudly announce that they have been done in accordance with BS 5930 with no mention of BS10175 thus revealing the writer’s ignorance of good practice.
There is a place for well crafted combined geotechnical and geoenvironmental investigations that properly address both aspects. However, there remain some geotechnical specialists who still think that a few samples taken from random depths from a few random locations and analysed for an unjustified suite of potential contaminants constitutes an adequate investigation for contamination. I should add here, that when I have checked, the culprits have not been AGS members – and that in itself says something about them.
PPS23 (Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control – Annex 2: Development on Land Affected by Contamination) is about to be withdrawn. This currently indicates that site investigations for contamination should be in accordance with BS10175:2011. It seems likely to be replaced by a single phrase in the simplified planning guidance that the government is intending to introduce. This will make it all the more important for AGS to continue to try to educate both its members and clients about good practice.

BS10175:2011 What has changed?

BS10175 gives recommendations for, and guidance on the investigation of land potentially affected by contamination and land with naturally elevated concentrations of potentially harmful substances, to determine or manage any risks.

The brief for the revision was to:

align BS 10175 with International Standards (e.g. ISO 10381 series) especially those adopted as British Standards
update in relation to legislation and authoritative guidance
update technically
include additional guidance on sampling uncertainty
extend guidance on application of on-site analytical methods (align with draft BS ISO 12404)

All these issues have been properly addressed during the revision. In addition, a number of other significant “general” changes have been made:

clearer separation between “Normative text” (i.e. guidance) and informative text
clarification of some terminology, e.g. “contamination”
emphasise on the importance of early consultation with regulators and including provision of information on the role of local authority “contaminated land officers”
tightened reporting requirements
introduction of a requirement concerning the qualification of drillers etc. (as in CP 5930 as amended 2010).

The importance of the conceptual model is emphasised and the process of investigation is characterised as one that seeks to reduce the uncertainty in the conceptual model.

The definition of “contamination” has been amended to:

Presence of a substance or agent, as a result of human activity, in, on, or under land, which has the potential to cause harm or cause pollution.

There is no assumption in this definition that harm results from the presence of contamination.
The change aligns BS10175 more closely with the definition in “BS ISO 11074 Soil quality – Vocabulary” and helps to make it clear that the definition in Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 has only a narrow application. It should also help to discourage the use of the oxymoron “natural contamination”.

Requiring Planning Conditions or similar regulatory requirements to be noted in the introduction to reports will, hopefully, discipline consultants to get proper briefing from their clients and to consult regulators when they are required to do so (the potential benefits of consultation with regulators when there is no formal requirement is also emphasised). It will be clearer whether regulatory concerns have been addressed and proper consultations carried out.

Article Contaminated Land Laboratories

UKWIR – GUIDANCE FOR THE SELECTION OF WATER SUPPLY PIPES TO BE USED IN BROWNFIELD SITES

1st May 2011 - by Ann-Marie Casserly

Tags: analysis brownfield contaminated investigation laboratories

Peter Boyd, AECOM Limited and Neil Parry, Geotechnical Engineering Limited

The UK Water Industry Research (UKWIR) has produced this document to replace the heavily criticised 2002 WRAS guidance on water supply pipe materials for contaminated land. Unfortunately there remain several similar problems with the new document. It has been produced by UKWIR with the footnote “Promoting Collaborative Research” but there does not appear to have been any collaboration or consultation with practitioners in the industry. As a result the document fails to reflect commonly accepted industry practice and terminology.

The basis of the document is highly conservative, for example making reference to identifying whether “any chemical may have ever been on a site” and that “samples should be collected at a frequency and depth that will identify any contamination”. Although it rightly advocates a risk based approach to sampling and assessment many of the recommendations ignore this premise and current guidance, with the end result likely to be overdesign and significantly increased costs for end users.

The document was recently revised, where some of the initial errors were corrected, unfortunately several errors remain and the opportunity to gain widespread acceptance was missed.

The responsibility for the selection of supply pipes is confused between the Developer, Self Lay Organisation (SLO) and Designer. The responsibility for the production of the crucial Site Assessment Report (SAR) is not clear between the “Developer” or the “Designer” without considering whether they have the necessary contaminated land expertise. Guidance such as the new Eurocodes define competence roles and from an industry perspective it’s yet another missed opportunity to give some further recognition to the SiLC qualification. It seems to be aimed at the layman but also advocates a very wide ranging and unusual range of laboratory implying the user has a detailed knowledge of soil sampling, preservation and laboratory testing. It is also unfortunate that 30 years after the first edition of BS5930 the document blurs the distinction between site investigation and ground investigation.

Desk Study
The document provides some good general guidance on establishing previous site use and the potential for contamination but insufficient information or reference is provided for a general user to adequately complete this. It suggests that the findings should be summarised on a map to show current and historic land use but show a level of detail at a scale which would not be possible in most practical instances. implying that the authors have not actually performed this exercise with real data or thought about the preparation of a robust conceptual model, which is the basis for most contaminated land assessment.

The document suggests that the Local Authority may request an SAR as part of the planning process. There is no recognition of the fact that such an assessment could and perhaps should be incorporated into the routine pre-development desk study, intrusive ground investigation and interpretative reporting process.

Investigation
When looking at investigation the application of photoionization detector (PID) screening is meaningless without further guidance. The “suitable survey pattern” is not defined and ignores the shortcomings of PID readings. The extent of suggested PID testing could also be onerous in most circumstance.

The soil sampling section refers to an unspecified “suitable survey pattern” which is easily confused with the PID screening. Although it recommends the use of BS10175 for more detailed information on the design of a sampling plan no specific information on sampling for proposed services is included. It makes reference to taking “a spadeful” and the use of a “plastic bag” for samples which may be inappropriate and ignore the complexities of sampling. Investigation and sampling are assumed to be undertaken via trial pits (likely to be machine dug to achieve the recommended depths) which would be difficult in an urban situation where numerous existing services are present and may not present the best method for obtaining the best samples, particularly for groundwater. It suggests that if groundwater is present within 1m (or 2m in summer) of the base of the intended trench then a water sample should be taken from “a suitably completed narrow borehole” but establishing groundwater depth may be difficult.

Chemical Analysis
One of the most onerous parts of the recommendations is the imposition of a mandatory analytical suite to be undertaken on all samples. Despite the fact that a desk study and ground investigation has been undertaken, including PID screening for VOCs, it appears that there is a limited choice for the user of the document in respect of what testing is required. The suite is far from routine with several determinands not generally carried out by any of the commercial laboratories in the UK on soils. To cover the lists as provided would probably cost in excess of £300 per sample. Notably only organic contaminants are considered with the absence of inorganics such as arsenic.

Confusion extends to the proposed testing suites. The extended VOC suite (by GCMS) contains many non VOCs such as Benzo(a)pyrene and propylene glycol, explosives such as nitroglycerine and nitrotoluene (which are analysed by HPLC), Nitrohydrochloric acid (Aqua Regia a mixture of HCL and nitric acid which again cannot be analysed as a VOC) and Naphtha which is petroleum terminology for an ill defined distillate. There are misspelled chemicals such as “Mesityl” oxide and duplicated compounds such as methyl chloroform (which is 1,1,1 TCE) and Monochlorobenzene which is Chlorobenzene.

Other suites contain similar errors. Petroleum ether is incorrectly listed under ethers. Under mineral oil the document contains a turpenoid, a plasticiser, a flavour, a fatty acid and fuming sulphuric acid with no mention of mineral oil C5-C10, C11-C20 and C21-C40 listed in the “mandatory analytical suite”. A random list of chemicals is listed under Conductivity, Redox and pH including a vitamin, food preservatives and a range of compounds that would either not be found or could not be determined by routine analyses.

The simplistic approach to the determination of redox and resistivity in disturbed samples also causes some concern. This should at least reference BS 1377 Part 3:1990 and mention the benefits of in-situ measurements. Other soil conditions, not necessarily associated with a brownfield site, may also need to be examined for classification, for example “Wetness Class” which, although are not directly related to contamination, are used in the examination of sites for existing or proposed ductile iron pipes.

In relation to chemical testing reference is made to detection limits – but no discussion on how these limits were arrived at is included. These are set at “at least 10 times lower that the screening values identified” which appears to be arbitrary.

Specification of Water Supply Pipes
The final part of the document, as expected, relates to the process of specification of pipes. It provides a comprehensive list of standards and guidance for each of the options including ductile iron, steel, polyethylene (PE), PE Barrier, PVC and copper. Further undefined terms which will have a major effect on the specification are included such as “light chemical contamination”

Unfortunately some of the chemistry in this part is also misleading. It gives a conversion from EC to resistivity, which is not applicable to soils as it does not take into account natural moisture content, compaction, voids or the benefit of in-situ measurements. Redox is used as a criteria without proper reference to BS1377 or acknowledging the problems likely to be encountered with disturbed samples.

Once all of the results of the extended testing have been received, individual chemicals are summed in groups, which appears to be highly questionable considering the differences between each of them. Further mistakes are noted on the Pipe Selection Table 3.1, below which is provided to make a final selection, notably with disagreements between these figures and those in F.4 (Derivation of ‘data-supported threshold values’ for PE and PVC). In this table there would be no requirement for any analysis if Barrier Pipe (PE-Al-PE) is used as it passes on all counts. It is felt that the selection of barrier pipe for all sites will be a frequently exercised option as this is suitable for all conditions, it would also negate the need for any of the desk study, analysis, site assessment and pipe selection process covered in the rest of the document. A statement that “barrier pipes should be used for all brownfield sites” would make the whole of this document redundant.

		Pipe material
		All threshold concentrations are in mg/kg
	Parameter group	PE	PVC	Barrier pipe (PE-Al-PE)	Wrapped Steel	Wrapped Ductile Iron	Copper
1	Extended VOC suite by purge and trap or head space and GC-MS with TIC	0.5	0.125	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass
1a	+ BTEX + MTBE	0.1	0.03	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass
2	SVOCs TIC by purge and trap or head space and GC-MS with TIC (aliphatic and aromatic C5 – C10)	2	1.4	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass
2e	+ Phenols	2	0.4	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass
2f	+ Cresols and chlorinated phenols	2	0.04	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass
3	Mineral oil C11-C20	10	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass
4	Mineral oil C21-C40	500	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass
5	Corrosive (Conductivity, Redox and pH)	Pass	Pass	Pass	Corrosive if pH < 7 and conductivity > 400μS/cm	Corrosive if pH < 5 , Eh not neutral and conductivity > 400μS/cm	Corrosive if pH < 5 or > 8 and Eh positive
Specific suite identified as relevant following Site Investigation
2a	Ethers	0.5	1	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass
2b	Nitrobenzene	0.5	0.4	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass
2c	Ketones	0.5	0.02	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass
2d	Aldehydes	0.5	0.02	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass
6	Amines	Fail	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass

Table 3.1: Pipe selection table

Conclusions

Although the document recommends a staged process of desk study, investigation, assessment and specification there are several areas where it is far from satisfactory. Lack of suitable detail, ignorance of current guidance and an unwieldy and expensive approach to chemical analysis has made the process of selecting suitable pipe materials almost impossible.

Given the potential complexity and cost of the investigation and analysis to fulfil the requirements of the document it is likely that developers and specifiers will often take the simpler approach of always using barrier pipes in brownfield sites when there is any possibility of contamination. This will be the case in most existing domestic plots and extensions (where the presence of a garage or garden shed would lead to the onerous investigation procedure) and may in turn lead to barrier pipes being unnecessarily specified. It is also possible that the replacement of lead water pipes will be prevented by the higher costs caused by following this guidance.

We would recommend that the document goes through a further period of consultation including commercial laboratories, consultants and industry groups (such as EIC, NHBC and AGS). The limitation of desk studies and PID screening should be added and more guidance and reference on the investigation, preparation of a conceptual model and provision of competent personnel given. A more flexible approach to analysis should be taken, relating the testing to the previous site usage. The selection process should also be made simpler, making the choice of other pipe materials more likely.