Article Business Practice Executive

Apprentices – back in vogue

- by

Equipe Training Limited has delivered its’ first courses in September from their newly established Drilling AcademyTM near Banbury, Oxfordshire.  The courses were delivered on behalf of the British Drilling Association and comprised Module 5 – Site Management and Module 6 – Drilling and Grouting of the Land Drilling Sector Apprenticeship Scheme.
Brian Stringer, National Secretary of the British Drilling Association, said that “the BDA were delighted and impressed with the courses’ delivery and the very professional arrangements, content of the courses and the manner in which they were delivered”.

 
The courses were attended by apprentices from leading UK drilling companies and incorporated theory sessions provided from the Drilling AcademyTM as well as a site visit to an operational site managed by M&J Drilling. Keith Spires, Operational Director of Equipe Training, said that “the apprentices were being given a unique opportunity to experience all aspects of their trade”.

 
The apprenticeship modules, in their current format, were developed in 2007 by the British Drilling Association working with ConstructionSkills (formerly CITB) in response to UK Government initiatives for improving adult learning and establishing a skilled workforce. It is reported that ConstructionSkills, which oversees training within the construction industry, has secured £133m from government for a three year skills delivery plan which includes over 2,000 specialist apprentice starts.

 
The BDA and Equipe will be working together to encourage the geotechnical and drilling industry to provide new Apprentices for courses starting in early 2009 and welcomes any enquiries.

 

EQUIPE have applied to join the AGS and course information will be circulated to Members when available.

Article Business Practice Executive

Recruitment Aided!

- by

The Ground Forum is delighted to announce that 19 ground engineering job titles have been included in the new ‘Shortage Occupations List’ (SOL) which was published by the Migration Advisory Committee on 9th September.  Inclusion of these 19 ground engineering jobs in the new SOL means that, when the new points based immigration system comes into operation, these occupations will qualify for a work permit without having to accumulate sufficient points by other means.  In the meantime the 16 ground engineering disciplines remain on the old SOL, as negotiated by Ground Forum in 2005 and 2007.

Inclusion of these ground engineering occupations on the SOL has been described as “our life saver” by one senior geotechnical consultant.  Why?  Because it aids recruitment of skilled staff from outside the European Economic Area (EEA) without which timely delivery of the ground engineering sector’s current workload would be impossible.

The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) was set up by the UK Border Agency, a department within the Home Office, in 2007 in order to provide independent and rigorous identification of those occupations suffering shortages in the UK, with persistent vacancies which cannot be filled from within the EEA.

Keith Gabriel, the Chairman of Ground Forum, commented “we are delighted that the MAC has recognised the continuing skills shortage affecting the ground engineering sector” and added “I wish to acknowledge the excellent work carried out by Dianne Jennings and her team in Ground Forum’s secretariat; we had only three weeks in April to undertake the necessary research and compile a full report for the MAC; they pulled out all the stops to ensure that our research and report were both comprehensive and submitted on time – a superb effort.”

The ground engineering job titles included in the new Shortage Occupation List are included under two classes of the Standard Occupational Classification 2000 (SOC):
Civil Engineer (SOC 2121):
Geotechnical Engineer
Geotechnical Design Engineer
Geotechnical Specialist
Tunnelling Engineer
Geologists (plus Physicists and Meteorologists) (SOC 2113):
Geologist
Geological Engineer
Hydrogeologist
Geophysical Specialist
Geophysicist
Geoscientist
Contaminated Land Engineer
Geoenvironmental Engineer
Reservoir Panel Engineer
Rock Mechanics Engineer
Soil Mechanics Engineer
Geomechanics Engineer
Landfill Engineer
Contaminated Land Specialist
Geoenvironmentalist

For full details of the new SOL and the accompanying reports see:http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/aboutus/workingwithus/indbodies/mac/macfirstshortagelist/

Anyone wishing to employ people from outside the EEA now also needs a licence.  Go to http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/employers/points/  for an application form and for information about the requirements that HR systems and companies must meet in order to obtain a licence.

Article Loss Prevention

Are your e-mails and websites legal

- by

Requirements of the Companies Regulations 2006

From 1st January 2007 external business emails issued by public and private companies and limited liability partnerships MUST include the following information in legible text:

  • Company or partnership registration number
  • Place of registration (ie: England & Wales or Scotland)
  • Registered office address

These requirements were introduced in The Companies (Registrar, Languages and Trading Disclosures) Regulations 2006 which updated the Companies Act 1985 in order to comply with European law, namely the First Company Law Amendment Directive.  They effectively extend the requirements to show this information on companies’ “business letters” to all electronic documents and order forms.

The same information must also be displayed on the websites of these classes of organisation.  This requirement removes the ambiguities previously associated with the requirements of the E-commerce Regulations 2002 which referred to “geographic address” and required the registration number of organisations “registered in a trade or similar register” to be listed on their websites.

This article is provided solely to raise readers’ awareness of new legislation.  Readers should seek professional legal advice to ensure that their emails websites and documents comply with all relevant legislation.

Article Business Practice Data Management Executive Laboratories

Eurocode 7 letter

- by

Dear Editor

I have been delivering lectures on EC7 parts 1 and 2 for a while now, and I remain amazed and appalled at the level of ignorance amongst our colleagues about the status of the EC7 documents, particularly the TC341 Standards, and the associated changes to the UK National Standards. I know that BSI update their indexes and provide update news, and I know that we have tried publication in Ground Engineering and lectures around the country, and these efforts should all continue. Nevertheless, at a recent lecture in Cambridge (regional group) only one out of about 60 present knew about the implemented standards, and that one had attended a previous lecture.

Part of the problem may be that there is no one location where this information is pulled together, so I have done this on my website.  I am offering to maintain this simple tabulation of the current status for the benefit of others.

The link is http://www.drnorbury.co.uk/index.php?id=427.

Regards

David Norbury

Article Business Practice Contaminated Land

Environmental Permitting regulations

- by

The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations came into force on the 6th April 2008.  They merge Waste Management Licensing (WML) and Pollution Prevention and Control (PPC) regimes into a single system focussed on environmental outcomes and customer services.

In combining the regimes, the application forms and guidance have been simplified. The permitting options have also been improved by the introduction of standard permits.

All PCC permits and waste licences have automatically become environmental permits. Permits will not be re-issued and the conditions have not been changed, customers will be notified of this when they receive their subsistence invoice.

For more information, contact the Environment agency and request a copy of their booklet ‘Cutting Red Tape, Environmental Permitting Regulations’

Call: 08708 506 506
E-mail: enquiries@environment-agency.gov.uk

Article Business Practice Executive

A new system for migrant workers

- by

On Friday 29 February 2008, a new immigration system was launched to ensure that only those with the right skills or the right contribution will be able to come to the United Kingdom to work and study. The points-based system was designed to enable migration to be controlled more effectively, to tackle abuse and to identify the most talented workers.

Underpinning the new migration system is a five tier framework. The five tiers and the dates from which we will start accepting applications under them are:

Tier Applications open
Tier 1 (General): highly skilled workers, such as scientists and entrepreneurs From 29 February 2008
Tier 2: skilled workers with a job offer to fill gaps in United Kingdom labour force In the autumn of 2008
Tier 3: limited numbers of low skilled workers needed to fill temporary labour shortages This tier is currently suspended
Tier 4: students In the spring of 2009
Tier 5: temporary workers and youth mobility scheme: people allowed to work in the United Kingdom for a limited period of time to satisfy primarily non-economic objectives In the autumn of 2008

 

Ground Engineers fall under tier 2 and will need a certain number of points to qualify.  People transferring within the company (Intra Company Transfer Route) should have enough points  ( full details have not yet been anounced)and if Ground Engineers remain on the Shortage Occupation List, qualification should also be automatic. The Ground Forum have already submitted an application to retain Ground Engineers on the list).

Most applicants coming to the United Kingdom, or wanting to remain in the UK to work or study, will need to have a certificate of sponsorship from a licensed sponsor to qualify for permission to enter or stay, as well as meeting the points-based assessment.

To become an employer and sponsor of migrant workers a licence must be applied for. Sponsors must agree to meet a number of sponsorship duties which include record keeping, recording and compliance with the Home office and tier System.

Once given a licence, employers will be added to the Register of Sponsors, and will be able to issue certificates of sponsorship when applications for the relevant tiers are accepted later in the year.

The licence will be valid for four years, starting from the day it is issued or the day that applications start for the relevant tier, whichever is the later.

Sponsors applying for a licence for Tier 2 (General) – skilled worker and/or Tier 2 – intra-company transfers can apply to go on the register of sponsors now.

Article Safety

AGS manual handling

- by

More than a quarter of accidents that have occurred at work and have been reported to the enforcing authorities each year, are associated with manual handling.  During the period from 1990 to 1995, an average of 1,181 people annually suffered major injury, and 51,103 suffered injury resulting in more than three days off work.  This makes manual handling the largest single cause of injury at work.  It is not just the lifting of heavy loads that causes injury – often relatively lightweight objects picked up and carried awkwardly can result in major injury.

Virtually all aspects of our industry involve the manual handling of tools, samples, equipment, etc., of varying weights and dimensions.  Handling can be significantly compromised by difficult site conditions, such as slippery, wet, sticky, or muddy ground surfaces and perhaps variations in ground levels.

 

Most drilling equipment associated with CP boreholes, for example: heavy drilling/sampling tools, sinker bars, standard penetration- test trip hammers/rods, casing, and certain drilling consumables, pose a significant manual handling risk to site operatives.

Manual handling of, for example, the standard penetration test (SPT) trip hammer, at 110kg, remains a significant risk – and it is neither feasible nor practical to dismantle the hammer into manageable components.

In these and other circumstances it is a requirement of legislation to eliminate or reduce the risk to an acceptable level by introducing control measures to achieve safe working practices.

For carrying out a manual-handling risk assessment at any site, apply the acronym: ‘TILE’, which is derived from Task, Individual, Load and Environment, and described as follows:

Task

Consider distance of the load from the body, the movement of the body to pick up the item (including twisting, stooping and reaching), and frequency of the lifting task.  Appropriate control measures may include the changing of working layout and the avoidance of lifting from ground level.  This might include, for example, the placement of SPT rods on bandstands; the storage of materials at waste height, and the use of a drilling winch where appropriate.

Individual

Safe manual handling is dependent on the strength and physical fitness of the person carrying out the task, and whether the person has had appropriate manual handling training. Only the most physically competent and appropriately trained personnel, and appropriate number of personnel, should carry out the lifting of such heavy objects.

Load

Weight of load, centre of gravity of load, and size and shape of the load, should all be considered prior to load handling.  If the handling risk is unacceptable, it may be possible to break the load into smaller, manageable components (for example, using shorter casing and sinker bar lengths).  Smaller sample bags should be considered.

Environment

The working environment may significantly compromise manual handling tasks especially when they are performed outside on difficult terrain and in challenging weather conditions.  Effective controls in such conditions include creating a safe and well-managed working area that has no trip hazards.  The individual/s performing the task should be wearing appropriate clothing and personal protective equipment (PPE).

All manual handling tasks associated with site-investigation activities should be assessed using the TILE acronym above.

Other site tasks that involve the use (and lifting) of heavy equipment include: plate loading and California-bearing ratio (CBR) tests.  The same precautions and rules for lifting apply, i.e. breaking down the load into manageable components to achieve safe handling practices.  Where a reduction of load is not practical, a risk assessment should be carried out to assess the manual handling task and the necessary control measures required.

Manual handling of lesser loads, e.g. samples, can pose a significant risk if not managed correctly.  To avoid lifting excessive sample loads, the weight of bulk samples can be limited by the use of 15kg-bags, for example. Instructions can be given not to over fill bags.   Environmental sampling commonly requires double or even treble sampling, some of the samples of which are stored in glass containers. Glass adds significantly to the total weight of samples recovered.  Therefore, cool boxes used for storage and transportation of the glass containers should not be overfilled; the contents should be limited to a manageable load per box.

In summary, manual handling poses a significant risk to site operatives when carrying out site investigations, although the risks can be significantly reduced by the breaking down of equipment and the adoption of good management and safe working practices, including the training of personnel.  Where a load or task cannot be practicably reduced or broken down, a risk assessment must be carried out to ensure that there are no unacceptable risks to the individuals performing a lifting task.

 

References

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992, as amended in 2002(1), http://www.hse.gov.uk/.

 

John R Pulsford – Associate Director
RSK Geoconsult Ltd

Article Business Practice Loss Prevention Safety

Defence cost in criminal prosecutions

- by

It is probably common knowledge that fines arising from Criminal Prosecutions for Health and Safety breaches are not covered by a designer’s Professional Indemnity Insurance Policy.

Fines therefore have to be paid out of the company’s assets.

Defending a Health and Safety prosecution can be difficult as the burden of proof is with the defendant to show that he has complied with the relevant legislation- it’s not for the prosecuting authority to establish in what way the legislation has been breached.

Consequently defending criminal prosecutions can be very expensive and may in fact exceed the possible fine that may arise.

This often results in the designer pleading guilty on the basis of getting a reduced fine even though he feels there was no breach.

Although the fine cannot be met by a Professional Indemnity Policy, the defence cost can be.

Many consultants are now considering that a significant feature of a particular PI policy is the ability to recover these defence costs.

Note that not all PI policies offer this cover and the decision to defend a prosecution will rest with the insurer who will look at the merits and likely success of a defence.

 

Ewan MacGregor
Griffiths and Armour

Article Contaminated Land

Construction Waste… and how to make it disappear

- by

Half of construction waste already gets recycled, but the other half is still either being spread as waste (under various licensing exemptions) or simply landfilled. With the pressure to create less waste, and Site Waste Management Plans now a reality for England and Wales (and coming through the back door to Scotland) guidance on ‘when is an alleged waste not a waste’ has been published by commercial law solicitors Semple Fraser.

If correctly applied, the legal answer to that question can legitimately transform what is asserted (often by the regulators) to be ‘waste’ into a genuine non waste ‘product’.

The “CL:AIRE” advisory group on contaminated land is currently consulting on a new code of practice-( visit www.claire.co.uk to view Code of Practice), which may affect the way the regulators seek to interpret and apply Some helpful pointers to the existing law can be downloaded from Semple Fraser’s website at

http://www.semplefraser.co.uk/index.php?s=50&c=180&p=1995.

Article Business Practice Data Management Executive Safety

Establishing Ground Rules

- by

Concerns over the place of Ground investigations in relation to CDM led John Banks and Mouchel Parkman to raise queries with HSE and an APS Legal Adviser. We print below the critical exchanges for the benefit of all those who may encounter similar concerns/ problems.

From John Bans (Technical Director of Mouchel Parkman and Finance Director of APSt) to staff at Mouchel Parkman

“I have attached a copy of the legal advice received from The Association for Project Safety relating to the application of CDM Regulations to Ground Investigations. The reason for asking for a specific ruling was the attitude of the Contractor who despite being informed (via structure and correct ICE Conditions of Contract) that we expected them to be Principal Contractor, moaned about the fact once appointed.  The work is small in scale: 3 days trail pitting, then a break and then returning to undertake the boreholes for 3 weeks.

You will note that the ruling supplied states that it is the project that is important (building schools [and in fact most projects] generally takes longer than 6 weeks to construct)

I know I have started this before but note that:

  • All Ground Investigations, allied to a larger project will have a construction period of no longer than 6 weeks (and generally that is the only reason we are doing them), need a CDM Co-ordinator and Principal Contractor

The only exception is where we are undertaking Ground Investigations and there is no final project (seeing if a site is within Part 11A, etc)”

 

The APS Legal Advisors had responded to John’s enquiries as follows:
“The issue in this query centres around the definition of a project. This is defined in regulation 2 as “a project which includes or is intended to include construction work and includes all planning, design, management or other involved in a project until the end of the construction phase”.

The ground investigation is part of a larger project. The definition of a project extends to include the planning and design, which is taking place at the same time as the ground investigation. It would be artificial to treat the ground investigation works as separate from the project as a whole.

The difference between treating the ground investigation as part of a notifiable project, and treating it as a stand alone project which is not notifiable, need not be very great.  The ground investigation contractor would of course have the duties of a principal contractor, but contractors have duties under CDM2007 in any event if their work is not notifiable (see regulation 13).

Because of the limited nature of the works, the health and safety file would not need to be lengthy or elaborate. The health and safety plan would deal with the specific risks only. Similarly the health and safety file would not need to cover more than the residual risks arising out of the ground investigation works or which have become apparent as the result of those works.”

The Mouchel Parkman Compliance manager had also sought the views of the HSE at Rose Court via infoline and received the following.

“You are correct in every respect. The ground investigation works are part of the notifiable part of the project. It is not unusual for ground investigation works to take place early, perhaps long before the appointment of the Principal Contractor who will be undertaking the management of the main construction phase. However, it is still part of the same overall project.

As the project is notifiable, and the ground investigation is part of the notifiable project, there needs to be a Principal Contractor (PC) appointed. If the only work being carried out on site is the ground investigation, then I do not understand why the ground contractor thinks they are not competent to act as PC- for themselves. The role of PC is essentially to co-ordinate the construction work on site, to ensure that it is carried out safely. I assume the contractor feels confident enough to do their own work safely.  There will be a requirement to fence off the site, liaise and co-ordinate with the school/client to ensure safety to children, staff and the nearby public, and ensure welfare facilities. Their construction phase plan will only need to go as far as covering their involvement at the site. At the end of their work, presumable they relinquish the role of PC, which is subsequently taken up by the PC for the main construction phase plan.

If there will be other contractors working at the same time as the ground investigation contractor, I can understand their reluctance if they have not been in a position to manage other contractors before, and they may not have personnel capable or competent to do this task. Otherwise, acting as PC for their own work only, should not create any extra demands.

Ref: Article taken from APS newsletter/ October 2007

Article Laboratories

Use of Standard Laboratory Tests in the Assessment of Slope Stability of Peat

- by

In December 2006 the Scottish Executive (SE) published a best practice guide for proposed electricity generation developments entitled “Peat landslide hazard and risk assessments”. The SE document includes a requirement for slope stability analysis using the infinite slope equation. While there is nothing wrong with the equation, it pre-supposes that the conventional effective stress parameters are appropriate for peat and furthermore, by implication, that they can be obtained from standard laboratory testing.

In his major work on peat, Hobbs specifically excluded any discussion on shear strength noting that it is clear that the strength depends not only on effective stress but also on time as the void ratio continuously decreases under maintained load. Other authors have reported exceptionally high drained strengths and regard the effective stress tests as problematic.

Notwithstanding the foregoing paragraph, there has been a noticeable increase in demand for effective stress triaxial and direct shear tests on peat to satisfy the requirements of the SE document. Inevitably these tests create major difficulties for the test laboratory and then provide strengths which are not credible to the engineer doing the assessment.

The following comments need careful consideration prior to scheduling what can be time consuming and expensive laboratory tests :

  • Assessment based on compressive or shear stresses may be insufficient for peat in which the main strength may well be tensile due to fibrous structure.
  • For effective stress triaxial and direct shear tests the rate of strain in shearing is derived from the preceding consolidation stages. For peat there are well documented difficulties in identifying primary and secondary compression, and their associated parameters. Standard test procedures rely on data for primary consolidation only in order to calculate compression rates. In peat, secondary compression may be more dominant.
  • In undrained compression, pore pressures increase rapidly and are sustained very close to the applied total stress, thus producing very low effective stresses, often within the uncertainty of measurement of standard testing. This is particularly true where the stresses are initially very low as would be the case for superficial peats. Such low effective stresses are inherently inaccurate and lead to derivation of very high effective angle of friction, 50o to 80o have been reported.
  • In drained compression or direct shear the rapid flow of water from specimens often produces an untypically concave upward trend in the stress/strain curve without achieving failure even at very high deviatoric stress, again producing a very high angle of friction.

 

This cautionary note should not detract from the main requirements and recommendations of the guide, but needs to be given serious consideration when assessing the method of analysis to be used for slope stability in peat. If such laboratory testing is to be used, it is prudent to discuss individual requirements with the laboratory prior to scheduling, but still expect the test results to be problematic.

Peter Keeton, Environmental Services Group Ltd

Article Safety

Underground Services and Utility Plans

- by

Figures provided by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) record around 30 fatalities a year through contact with electricity. Most of these fatalities arise from contact with overhead or underground power cables and even when non-fatal, they can cause severe and permanent injury. Within the ground investigation industry, the potential for striking underground services is far greater than from coming into contact with overhead services and it is possibly the greatest risk we face.

The ability to react quickly to the requests of clients is seen by many companies as their competitive advantage, but this has to be balanced against the legal requirement to reduce risk. Any measures taken should be in accordance with the general principles of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 further clarified in the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations (CDM) 2007 :

  • clients shall ‘provide appropriate pre-construction information to designers and contractors’
  • all parties shall allow sufficient time to obtain vital pre-construction safety information

To help companies discharge these duties the HSE provides clear guidance on how to reduce the level of risk from underground services in their publication ‘HSG47 – Avoiding Danger from Underground Services’ . Within HSG47 the HSE outlines the requirement for any company involved with work where there is a risk of contacting underground services, to have in place and use a safe system of work consisting of four elements:

  • Planning the work and risk assessment
  • Maps and plans to identify the presence and location of underground services
  • Cable and pipe locating devices
  • Safe digging practices

Planning the work, assessing risk, using cable avoidance tools and safe digging are in every safe system of work but the use of utility plans is often absent. So why do many people take a short cut that could result in injury or fatality?

Initially it is the inability to obtain utility plans within the timescales demanded by clients and the commercial pressure to deliver reports and studies on time. Although utility plans are generally available within five working days they can take longer and this may not fit the expectations of the client, particularly where the decision to purchase land depends on the outcome of a report by a fixed deadline. But in the context of CDM2007, the provision of utility plans and any resulting delay in mobilisation is seen as strong evidence that all reasonable care has been taken to protect staff and members of the public.

CDM has always defined construction as:

‘Any civil engineering ….the preparation for an intended structure, including site clearance, exploration, investigation (but not site survey).’

Historically, the geotechnical and environmental sector has often viewed its work as exempt from the requirements of CDM as work only fell within the scope of the regulations when the work was ‘in preparation for a structure’. With the revision in April 2007 this requirement has been clarified and it is now clear CDM applies to work undertaken in ‘preparation of sites for use’, whether notifiable or not. It should be noted that irrespective of CDM there is an existing duty of care and HSG47 still applies.

The intention of a safe system of work is not necessarily to eliminate risk entirely but to reduce it to a level “as low as is reasonably practicable”. This is recognised by the HSE. However, for a safe system of work to be effective it must incorporate all four of the elements outlined in HSG47 and referred to earlier. The role of utility plans should be viewed in this context. Each element in the safe system of work has limitations, but they complement each other and when used together address the fundamental weaknesses of each.

The planning of the work and the development of risk assessments is the initial stage of the safe system of work. Understanding the site, its history and the nature and location of any likely services, will initially determine costs of works and the cable detection technology required. This can only be done with reference to utility plans.

Utility plans have limitations and this is often used as a justification for not including them in safe systems of work. Utility providers acknowledge their services rarely run in straight lines, surface depths may have changed, datums such as kerblines may have been moved and plans may only run to site boundaries. They all carry disclaimers to this extent.

Clients and contractors alike do not routinely expect utility plans to show the path of services on domestic, industrial or derelict sites and rarely request them as a result. This is particularly common for areas under development despite the fact that live services may still be present and utility plans may show where they cross sites or mysteriously terminate at the boundary. Without attempting to obtain utility plans in these cases the contractor or client will not be discharging their duty of care in possibly the highest risk environment of all.

Maps and plans are supplemental to the use of appropriate cable and pipe locating technologies which all come with inherent weaknesses. In most instances the appropriate cable locating technology will be a basic Cable Avoidance Tool (CAT) to verify the accuracy of utility plans or detect the presence of services not indicated. However CATs will not detect plastic or earthenware pipes, cables with no load and in some cases three phase cables where the load is well balanced. At the other end of the scale there is Ground Probing Radar which is expensive and may not detect all ground anomalies such as small diameter low voltage supply cables. To determine the suitable technology, reference must be made to utility plans and the site engineer must have an understanding of the applicable equipment.

Safe digging can only take place if you know what to expect. As examples, the use of mechanical equipment is prohibited within certain distances of gas mains with the distance depending on the mains pressure. Additionally safe digging traditionally relied on noticing a change in geology to indicate utility presence but this may no longer be applicable with the increasing use of directional drilling for service installation. In both of these examples the risk can only be truly managed with reference to utility plans.

As a final point of note, it must be understood that the safe system of work will only be effective if staff on site are trained in all 4 aspects and supported in the decisions they make. The safe system of work should carry the sponsorship of a senior figure, as a clear demonstration of commitment to staff safety, and be accompanied by a documented procedure that can be followed and used as reference.

References
Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 – Approved Code of Practice and guidance – L21 is available from HSE books priced £8.00

CDM2007 Approved Code of Practice known commonly as L144 is available from HSE books priced £15.00

HSG(47) ‘Avoiding Danger from Underground Services’ is available from HSE books (www.hsebooks.com) priced £7.50

Tom Phillips
Applied Geology