Article Business Practice Executive

Age Discrimination Regulations

- by

Members trying to come to grips with the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 can find information on the Evesheds website www.eversheds.com. (Drill down via ‘Services and Sectors’ to ‘human resources’ and ’employment law’ to find a list of articles published in this area.)

One of the most useful is entitled, ‘Age Regulation – an insight into how employers are responding to the issues’ (issued 24 October) which reports the results of a survey of 150 organisations. Each section begins with a very brief summary of the Regulations, and ends with a section entitled ‘implications and actions’

Article Business Practice Laboratories

Reinforced Fill

- by

BS EN 14475:2006 establishes general principles for the construction of reinforced fill. It covers engineered fills which are reinforced by the inclusion of horizontal or sub-horizontal reinforcement placed between layers of fill during construction.

The scope of reinforced fill applications considered in this European Standard include:

  • Earth retaining structures (vertical, battered or inclined walls, bridge abutments, bulk storage facilities) with a facing to retain fill placed between the reinforcing layers
  • Reinforced steep slopes with a facing (either built-in or added or wrap-around) reinforced shallow slopes without a facing, but covered by some form of erosion protection without a facing, and reinstatement of failed slopes
  • Embankments with basal reinforcement and embankments with reinforcement against frost heave in the upper part

Principles for the execution of other special geotechnical works using soil nails, bored piles, displacement piles, micro piles, sheet pile walls, diaphragm walls, grouting or jet grouting are established in other European Standards.  Reinforcement of road pavements is not covered by this Standard.

Price £136, Member Price £68
ISBN 0 580 49309 1

To order please contact our Customer Services department quoting reference 14475K-SA:
Tel: 44 (0)20 8996 9001
Fax: 44 (0)20 8996 7001
Email: orders@bsi-global.com
Article Laboratories

Soil Classification

- by

BS EN ISO 14688-2, together with BS EN ISO 14688-1, establishes the basic principles for the identification and classification of soils on the basis of those material and mass characteristics most commonly used for soils for engineering purposes. The relevant characteristics may vary and therefore, for particular projects or materials, more detailed subdivisions of the descriptive and classification terms may be appropriate.

The classification principles established in standard permit soils to be grouped into classes of similar composition and geotechnical properties and, with respect to their suitability for geotechnical engineering purposes, such as:

  • Foundations Ground improvements
  • Roads Embankments
  • Dams Drainage systems

BS EN ISO 14688-2 is applicable to natural soil and similar man-made material in situ and redeposited, but it is not a classification of soil by itself.

 

Identification and description of rock are covered by BS EN ISO 14689-1

BS EN ISO 14688-2:2004 partially supersedes BS 5930:1999, which remains current.

 

ISBN 0 580 47508 5
Price
£68

Member Price £34

ISBN 0 580 40481 1

Price £68*
Member Price  £34

Contact BSI’s Customer Services team

Tel: 44 (0)20 8996 9001
Fax: 44 (0)20 8996 7001
Email: orders@bsi-global.com

When ordering please quote marketing reference 14688G-N

Article Business Practice Data Management Loss Prevention

Equitable contribution clauses

- by

Scenario: a homeowner decides to have an extension built at his house and employs a consultant and a contractor to carry out work relating to the foundations.  Two months after the work is completed, the roof of the extension collapses because a wall structure was badly constructed and was unstable. The homeowner wants compensation, claiming that both the contractor and the consultant are to blame; he claims that the contractor provided poor workmanship and the consultant failed adequately to assess the ground conditions.

 

But who can the homeowner sue? Can he sue the contractor, the consultant, or both?

 

  1. Why include an equitable contribution clause in a contract?

An equitable contribution clause, sometimes known as a net contribution clause, contract seeks to ensure that where two or more parties (e.g. consultants and contractors in our scenario) are liable for the same damage, the liability of each party is restricted to the amount for which that party is responsible.  Such clauses have been included in professionals’ conditions of engagement and collateral warranties for some time.  They are included in the standard terms of engagement published by various professional bodies such as the Royal Institute of British Architects and the Association of Consulting Engineers.

  1. How does an equitable contribution clause operate?

In our scenario, an equitable contribution clause in the homeowner’s contract with the consultant would state that if the consultant is liable, that liability will be capped at whatever it is just and equitable for the consultant to pay having regard to his and any other person’s fault.  In the absence of the equitable contribution clause, the homeowner is free to sue the consultant for 100% of the damages he has suffered.  The consultant can then rely on the Civil Liability (Contributions) Act 1978 to seek to recover a contribution from the contractor.

  1. The law

If parties have joint liability, then they are each liable up to the full amount of the relevant obligation; the converse is several liability, where the parties are liable for only their respective obligations.  Joint and several liability is a hybrid of both; with respect to our scenario, the consultant and the contractor are jointly liable, but as between themselves, their liabilities are several.

The Civil Liability (Contributions) Act 1978,  s. 1(1) provides that a person who is liable in respect of any damage is entitled to recover a contribution from any other person liable in respect of the same damage.  This means that if the homeowner pursues the consultant for damages, and receives payment in full, the consultant can then pursue the contractor for a contribution to their share of the liability.

  1. Shifting risk and responsibility

Back to our scenario: in the absence of an equitable contribution clause, the homeowner decides to sue the consultant for the damage he has suffered.  By paying all of the damages to the homeowner, the consultant takes the risk that the contractor is solvent and so will be able to meet any claim under the Civil Liability (Contributions) Act 1978.  If the contractor is insolvent, then the consultant will not have a meaningful remedy.

But if the consultant is a party to a contract which contains an equitable contribution clause, the risk of the contractor’s insolvency shifts to the homeowner.  If the consultant is 30% responsible and the contractor 70% responsible, then the consultant will be liable only for 30% of the homeowner’s loss, even though under the joint and several principle he would be responsible for 100%, and even if the contractor is insolvent. The equitable contribution clause means that the contractor’s 70% fault is funded by the homeowner rather than the consultant.

Invariably, developers and investors are not keen on equitable contribution clauses as they can affect recovery of losses.  Insurers, on the other hand, welcome such clauses. For consultants and contractors they have an important role to play in an effective risk management strategy.

  1. Example of an equitable contribution clause

This example is shown for illustrative purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice.

Without prejudice to any other exclusion or limitation of liability, damages, loss, expense or costs the liability of [the Consultant] for any claim or claims under this Agreement shall be further limited to such sum as it would be just and equitable for [the Consultant] to pay having regard to the extent of his responsibility for the loss or damage giving rise to such claim or claims (‘the loss and damage’) and on the assumptions that:

  1. all other consultants, contractors, sub-contractors, project managers or advisers engaged in connection with [the Project] have provided contractual undertakings on terms no less onerous than those set out in Clause [ ] to the [the Client] in respect of the carrying out of their obligations; and
  2. there are no exclusions of or limitations of liability nor joint insurance or co-insurance provisions between the [Client] and any other party referred to in this clause and any such other party who is responsible to any extent for the loss and damage is contractually liable to the [Client] for the loss and damage; and
  3. all such other consultants, contractors, sub-contractors, project managers or advisers have paid to the [Client] such sum as it would be just and equitable for them to pay having regard to the extent of their responsibility for the loss and damage.

 

Dr Alan McBride

Steven Francis

Eversheds LLP solicitors

Article Business Practice Executive Safety

Guidance on the use of HBM in working platforms

- by
Tags: Guidance HBM

New guidance has been launched by WRAP entitled ‘Guidance on the use of HBM in working platforms’.  This covers the key issues related to working platforms constructed using stabilised materials, providing detailed guidance for the platform’s design, specification, installation, operation, maintenance and repair.

Within the guidance document are case studies on three construction projects, which have made significant gains from using on-site soils and granular materials in the construction of a working platform. This can be downloaded, free of charge fromwww.wrap.org.uk/applications/publications (search on HBM and click on the PDF icon).

FPS sponsored guidance entitled “Working platforms for tracked plant: good practice guide to the design, installation, maintenance and repair of ground-supported working platforms” can be obtained from www.brebookshop.com.  This will cost £49.35.

Article Contaminated Land

Supporting the contaminated land community

- by

Dealing with uncertainty and heterogeneity in the risk-based land management process continues to present challenges for the contaminated land community.  The up front investment required to more accurately define risk is sometimes difficult to communicate to all stakeholders involved in projects which can, in some instances, lead to regretful compromises.

 

The EA’s MCerts Policy has increased confidence

Application of the Environment Agency’s MCerts Policy, which standardised laboratory based analytical procedures, has delivered increased confidence in the outputs of samples analysed by laboratories, however the relative cost per sample continues to offer opposition to increasing sampling density. This challenge is recognised by many, including the Environment Agency, however, there is a growing body of evidence to support the conclusion that greater emphasis needs to be placed upon overcoming it if we are to continue to develop potentially contaminated sites whilst eliminating risk and future liabilities

 

Added value…

Portable field analytical tools are, therefore, being increasingly considered to have an important role in supporting the community overcome this challenge. Their appropriate application can offer many added-value and commercial benefits. These include:

 

  • more rapid and cost effective determination of spatial and temporal variations (i.e. heterogeneity);
  • the optimisation of sampling strategies for subsequent laboratory analysis which, ultimately, increase the quality of site data and confidence; and
  • in the right circumstances, they can even enable on-site decision making, thereby dramatically saving time and money.

 

Such tools have been available for several decades and have been rigorously applied in other environmental fields, such as the trade effluent and stack emission monitoring.  However, their application in the contaminated land sector has been relatively low to date. There are many rational reasons for this, including a lack of awareness and confidence in their application, due, in part, to a lack of case history providing technical and economic evidence; a lack of available skills within the practitioner community; and a limited level of acceptance in their application and interpretation throughout the community.

 

FASA workshop

To this end, FASA, the Field Analytical Suppliers Association, hosted x4, one-day workshops this year, to provide attendees with a practical introduction to field analytical tools.

 

These events included:

  • the provision of information related to how they fit within the UK regulatory framework, kindly provided by Bob Barnes and Brian Bone from the Environment Agency;
  • an overview of available tools and case study information detailing the application of five of the most commonly applied; and
  • attendees were provided with the opportunity to see the tools for themselves and gain answers to their individual needs during afternoon demonstration surgeries.

 

What is FASA?

FASA is an independent body created to support the efforts of regulators, industry and laboratories in the management of potentially contaminated environments. It is funded and coordinated by suppliers and manufacturers of field tools in the UK and is supported and administered by IPM-Net.

The workshops described form part of its commitment to assist the community gain an informed understanding of the application of field analytical tools and their appropriate use. FASA aims to further assist the community by working with key stakeholders to develop guidelines, training material, best practice QC/QA procedures as well as technique specific information, such as case studies and evaluations.

 

Following analysis of the attendees’ feedback from the workshops it is clear that such information will assist the community, with 81% and 77% stating that the lack of available guidance and performance information, respectively, were barriers to their uptake. Their perceived costs, a lack of regulation and a lack of information on how to use field tools were, individually, seen as barriers to 60% of attendees.

 

New guidance being developed

The Environment Agency is currently developing guidance on the use of field analytical tools within the risk-based approach to land contamination. This document will discuss, amongst other aspects, the application of field tools in the context of sampling and analytical plans, fit for purpose decision making, building lines of evidence and informing conceptual site models. The first draft is likely to be circulated to the FASA committee by the end of this year, with further release anticipated to occur in the Spring of 2007.

 

For further information contact:

 

Mr Perry Guess , FASA Chairman

Tel:               01865 610504

E-mail:          perry.guess@earth.ox.ac.uk

 

FASA representatives will give a presentation at the next Contaminated Land WG (20 February 2007) on the use of field analytical tools.

Article Business Practice Data Management

Single Point Project (Financial Loss) Insurance (SPPI)

- by
Tags: insurance

The government is to trial a radical new form of project-wide insurance on about 10 public sector schemes. The move is part of the government’s drive to improve public sector procurement efficiency following the Gershon review. It will be watched with interest by the Olympic Delivery Authority which is planning to introduce project-wide insurance on all Olympic 2012 sites. The major government spending departments will put forward one or more schemes, worth between £10m and £20m, for the trial, which is expected to begin by the end of the year. It will include schemes from the Building Schools for the Future initiative, the Department of Health’s ProCure 21 scheme, as well as projects from the Highways Agency, Defence Estates and Cambridge University Estates.

The insurance scheme, known as Single Point Project (Financial Loss) Insurance (SPPI) is being championed by the Office of Government Commerce with the support of the Public Sector Construction Clients’ Forum, chaired by Sir Christopher Kelly. It is based on a scheme operating in Belgium , where integrated teams are monitored by an independent “technical assurance” bureau trusted by insurers, and which has resulted in the cost of premiums plummeting by 30%. The initiative has been developed for the British market by a team from the construction and insurance industries, led by Martin Davis, chair of the Strategic Forum’s integration steering group.

Davis told CJ that SPPI was an attempt to help the industry become less adversarial and more collaborative. “Traditionally all contracts and insurances are focused on each individual supplier rather than the team. There is a preoccupation with liabilities and the blame culture inhibits true collaboration,” he said.

Under SPPI the client and the insurer appoint independent experts for technical and cost assurance at the beginning of the project, who help appoint an integrated team and then monitor the project’s progress from design development to completion. They also monitor risks affecting safety, performance and cost, allowing prompt remedial action and cost-effective latent defects insurance.

The integrated team’s collective profits are geared to performance criteria, their share of the profits is agreed upfront and the team members pledge not to sue each other for anything but fraud. “In Belgium , this form of insurance has seen premiums fall by 30% because the risks are significantly reduced, since the project is closely monitored and suppliers are working as a team with their profits tied to everyone succeeding. “At the same time it cuts out the huge legal and forensic costs that come with having a multitude of policies,” Davis said.

Five leading insurers have agreed to provide cover for the pilot projects, subject to suitable capping for maximum liability. These are expected to include Norwich Union, Royal and SunAlliance and Zurich  Cost assurance will be provided by Davis Langdon and the technical assurer will be SECO, the independent advisor used on the Belgium project insurance scheme. The pilot schemes are expected to be identified by the end of the year.

(c) Copyright 2006. Reed Business Information Limited. All rights reserved.

Article Business Practice Data Management

Drilling into Coal Authority’s assets

- by

The Coal Authority was established under the Coal Industry Act 1994. All in situ coal, old mineworkings, current mineworkings and all shaft and adits vested in British Coal are owned by the Coal Authority. As a consequence formal permission is required from the Coal Authority if any of these assets are to be disturbed. Such ‘Permission to enter or disturb Coal Authority mining interests’ will therefore be required for all ground investigations which will intercept any coal seams in the ground.

The Coal Authority charge a fee for the permit based on the size of the site – i.e. £100 per 0.1hectare up to maximum of £2500 for large sites. If such a permit is not obtained then the company undertaking the work would be guilty of a trespass and liable to court action. In situations where a permit is applied for retrospectively the fees are doubled so there would be a potential cost of up to £5000. The requirement has been in place for some time but fees were recently increased significantly.

The application would normally be formally submitted by the client rather than the AGS but the AGS Member would be responsible for advising the client of the requirement for the permit.

Article Business Practice

Benchmarking Survey Results

- by

The Business Practice WG would like to thank all those who contributed to the site investigation benchmarking survey initiative.

The survey ran from June 2005 to March 2006 and included 58 projects, evenly split between the public and private sectors and ranging in value from £2.5k to £400k.

Members were asked to complete a ‘tick box’ questionnaire developed by the Working Group to cover eleven Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). The KPI categories are summarised below:

 

KPI (1)           Appointment (Personnel, Responsibilities)

KPI (2)           Preparation (Desk Study, Walkover Survey, Reports)

KPI (3)           Design (SI Design, Laboratory Testing)

KPI (4)           Risk Management (Risk, Availability of Information)

KPI (5)           Procurement ( GI Procurement Route , SI Award, Method of Measurement, Conditions of Contract, Specification)

KPI (6)           Management (Project Management, Quality Management, Environmental Management)

KPI (7)           Supervision

KPI (8)           Reporting (Factual)

KPI (9)           Reporting (Interpretative Report, Ground Model)

KPI (10)         Outcome

KPI (11)         Client Satisfaction

 

The results are presented below in the form of a series of spider diagrams selected to filter the data so that potential trends / anomalies can be identified. The accompanying comments are made as observations only.

All Data

Highest scores were recorded for KPI 1(Appointment), KPI 4 (Risk Management), KPI 8 (Factual Reporting) and KPI 9 (Interpretative Reporting). No scores dropped below 5 and the lowest score was recorded for KPI 2 (Preparation), see Consultant / Contractor split below. The results are presented as the pink line in Figure 1.

Consultant / Contractor Split

An approximately equal number of responses were received from Consultants, Contractors and Contractor Consultants. Figure 1compares the results returned from Contractors and Consultants.

KPI 2 (Preparation) shows greatest variation in responses and shows Contractors recorded an average score of just over 2 for this KPI. The reason for this is unclear but may have been influenced by the ‘tick box’ options which would return a low score if a desk study had not been seen.

For KPI 5 (Procurement), KPI 6 (Management) and KPI 11 (Client Satisfaction) Contractors scored projects more highly than Consultants. All other KPIs were scored more highly by the Consultants.

Small and Large Project Split (£20k)

Approximately half the projects in the survey had a value of more than £20k. The results for the £20k split are presented in Figure 2and indicate that projects with a value of a more  than £20k attained a higher score for KPI (1) (Appointment), KPI 2 (Preparation), KPI 9 (Reporting) and KPI10 (Outcome), but surprisingly scored lower for KPI 11 (Client Satisfaction).

Geotechnical / Geoenvironmental Split

It can be seen from Figure 3 that for KPI 3 (Design) and KPI 10 (Outcome) investigations undertaken for geoenvironmental purposes scored more highly than those undertaken for geotechnical purposes, but attained a lower score for KPI 4 (Risk Management) and KPI 5 (Procurement). This is interesting as a greater score would be obtained for KPI4 if environmental protection measures were in place. The reason for the variation in KPI 5 is unclear.

 The Next Stage

  The next stage will be to take the survey to a number of large public and private client bodies. Watch this space to see how they rate the industry.

Article Contaminated Land Laboratories

Annual meeting comes to London

- by

The annual meeting of ISO/TC190 (Soil Quality) is to be held in London this year at the BSi Headquarters, Gunnersbury near Hammersmith, from October 9th – 13th 2006. The venue country alternates between EEC countries and non-EEC countries. Last year it was held in Tokyo . It also hosts a meeting of the CEN/TC345 committee.

The meeting will discuss ISO and CEN standards for soil quality that are currently being developed and will consider existing standards that are due for review. Currently BS10175 is due for review!

Project Horizontal will also be on the agenda which is a process by which similar tests for various industries are amalgamated into a single horizontal standard which then automatically becomes a European standard if it meets the required approval criteria, determined by a vote of the participating countries. Project Horizontal is working on a number of tests relevant to AGS members which lend themselves quite readily to the ‘horizontal’ approach.

Of particular interest is the CEN TC345 project on the characterisation of sludge which is developing chemical test methods required since the issue of the Sludge Directive.

Delegates will be coming from many parts of the world including; European, EEC and EEC applicant countries, Russia , Japan andAustralia . They are generally members of national standardisation bodies drawn from direct employees and academics and consultants working in the soil science disciplines; this includes environmental, geoenvironmental and geotechnical specialists and practitioners.

BSI are looking for sponsorship to pay for the administration costs not covered by BSi, and for providing a formal dinner and excursions for the delegates. The BSI EH/4 committee hope that that some members of the AGS may be willing to help as sponsors. They are looking for £250 from businesses of 20 or less employees and £500 from bigger companies.  The number of sponsors accepted will be limited to the amount of sponsorship required and thus sponsor’s exposure to this wide array of delegates will not be swamped by a huge amount of literature.

The benefits of being a sponsor are as follows:

Small business sponsors will be offered a marketing package opportunity for £250 of the following:

  • their company logo on the back of the menu card;
  • a leaflet in the ISO/TC190 meeting pack (handed out on the first day of meetings);
  • one company employee to attend the Formal Dinner free of charge.

Large business sponsors will be offered a marketing package opportunity for £500 of the following (they will not be offered a £250 sponsorship package):

  • their company logo on the back of the menu card;
  • a leaflet in the ISO/TC190 meeting pack (handed out on the first day of meetings);
  • multiple company employees to attend the formal dinner (free of charge for the first two);
  • marketing board at the restaurant of choice (if approved by the restaurant of choice).

The EH4 Committee agreed that this event is a great networking opportunity for the industry.

A seminar on MCERTS will also be held and sponsors will be allowed free entry on the same basis as the meal.

Should your company wish to sponsor this international meeting please contact me in the first instance, peter.rodd@jacobs.com

Peter Rodd
Jacobs GIBB Ltd

Article Safety

Drilling down into industry safety

- by

Site investigation companies should expect increased HSE attention following the recent successful prosecution of CET Limited following an accident where a drill rig operator was forced several times through a 24cm gap between the mast and the auger. Guarding and stopping devices were considered inadequate and not in compliance with the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER).  CET were fined £20,000 (plus costs of £30,000) under Section 2 of the Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

A second, recent, incident, were the operator suffered a broken shoulder and two broken arms in similar circumstances only serves to underline the seriousness of ignoring the PUWER requirements.

Many AGS Members will already have received a letter from the HSE clarifying the legal responsibilities of employers to safe guard their employees.

Legal Requirements

Under current UK legislation employers’ legal duties include the following:

  • To ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health & safety of their employees.
  • To undertake a suitable & sufficient assessment of the risks to health & safety to which their employees, as well as other people, are exposed arising from their undertaking or work.  The significant outcomes of the assessment will normally have to be recorded.
  • To provide effective measures to prevent access to any dangerous part of machinery.
  • To ensure that, where appropriate, work equipment is fitted with one or more readily accessible controls to bring the machine to a complete stop where necessary for health & safety reasons (an emergency stop).
  • To ensure that, apart from where necessary, no control for work equipment is positioned where it would cause a risk to the health & safety of the operator.

Common Failures

Recent investigation by HSE has shown that people may be being placed at risk due to one or more of the following reasons:

  • A risk assessment has not been done & acted upon.
  • A risk assessment has been done but is neither suitable & sufficient in that it does not correctly identify the measures that could reasonably be taken to eliminate or reduce the risks identified.
  • Access to the dangerous rotating parts of the drilling machinery is not effectively prevented in line with the hierarchy of protective measures given in the Provision & Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER) & backed up in the BDA guidance.
  • Insufficient or inadequate emergency stops are provided.
  • The operator position places them in close proximity to the rotating part of machinery.
  • The nature of the work undertaken requires close approach to a rotating part of machinery.
  • Operators are not adequately trained or supervised.

Risk Assessment

The purpose of a risk assessment is for an employer to identify the risks his employees, & others affected by his work, may be exposed to.  Once this is done the employer should identify the measures that need to be taken to deal with these risks.

The primary aim should always be to completely eliminate any risk identified e.g. by effective guarding; where this is not practicable the risk must be reduced as much as possible by safe systems of work & the provision of information, instruction & training.

HSE has found that drilling equipment frequently requires close approach to the rotating drill string whether to operate controls, to take samples, backfill or for other reasons.  This obviously increases the risk of people becoming entangled if access to the dangerous part of machinery is not effectively prevented.  Any risk assessment needs to recognise the implications of this risk & ensure that the protective measures chosen offer the highest practicable level of protection.  Large piling rigs are covered by separate guidance produced by the Federation of Piling Specialists in liaison with HSE taking into account the different nature of the risks.

Levels of Protection

PUWER lays out a clear hierarchy of protective measures that is further clarified with direct reference to the drilling industry in the BDA guidance*.  In simple terms the hierarchy for preventing access to the rotating parts of a drilling rig is as follows:

  • A fixed guard that requires physically unbolting.
  • A moveable guard with an interlock cutting rotational power when opened.
  • An adjustable guard (i.e. a fixed or moveable guard with adjustable parts or whole), the adjustable part must be interlocked. These are commonly described as “telescopic”.
  • A caged working area that is interlocked thus preventing risk from rotation when anyone is in the area.
  • Trip wires or bars.
  • Proximity sensors or light beams.
  • Training & supervision.
  • Appropriate clothing with no loose attachments.

The last two points are not “stand-alone” measures but should be provided in all cases.  

Where access to the rotating drill string is to be prevented by a guard it should extend from 0.5 metres above ground level in all cases to 2 metres above ground level or 2 metres above the operator position if elevated.  The rotating drill string, even at relatively low speeds, is an extremely dangerous part of machinery.  The law demands that the highest practicable level of protection should be supplied to prevent access to the dangerous part.  As the BDA guidance quite correctly states in the “protective devices selection” section the actual decision must be made impartially & with safety, not time or cost, as the overriding concern.

In HSE’s opinion, given the practical operational difficulties a fully fixed guard would give, the best practicable solution in the majority of cases will be some form of moveable, interlocked guard.

It should be remembered that the rotating drill string is always to be considered a dangerous part of machinery from which people require the highest practicable means of protection.  This will not always be the most convenient or cheapest option available.

Where manufacturers are no longer trading, or effective guards are not yet available, bespoke guarding options can be retrofitted easily in most cases.

Trip Wires, Stop Bars & Light Beams

Trip wires & stop bars are included in the hierarchy but they are clearly a lower level of protection than a physical guard be it interlocked or fixed.  In order to activate a trip wire or stop bar the person is usually already entangled given the proximity of the device to the drill; plus due to the “wind-down” time further injury is likely once the device is activated.

PUWER requires access to be prevented – trip wire, stop bar or light beam type fixtures positioned in close proximity to the drill string will not usually prevent access to it.  They may reduce the level of injury once a person is entangled but they do not prevent the accident occurring.

Only where a physical guard which effectively prevented access was evidently impracticable would HSE consider a trip wire, light beam, pressure pad or stop bar arrangement a realistic option; further additional measures may also be needed to lower the risk to an acceptable level, for example, relocating operator positions, the fitting of devices to remove spoil automatically preventing repeated activation, a strict regime of maintenance & testing & close supervision.

Emergency Stops

At least one emergency stop should be fitted to each rig, one being next to the operator position.  Such stops must be separate from the usual off switch & require manual re-set so that they cannot fail to danger once activated.  They should be so designed as to bring the part of the operation causing the danger to a complete halt in the shortest achievable amount of time.

Other Considerations

Whilst the risk of injury arising from entanglement is a major risk in operating drilling rigs it is not the only area of concern for the industry.

Risk assessments should also address other associated risks to safety & health.  For example, risks from overhead power lines, underground services, vehicle movements, noise, falling objects, manual handling, soil contamination, the availability of proper welfare facilities to name but a few.

Conclusion

The entanglement risks faced by those operating, or working in close proximity to, drilling rigs are well known.  The legal requirements to protect people are similarly well known & the guidance clear.

The key factor in protecting people from these dangerous machines is a realistically robust risk assessment & the provision of a truly effective means of preventing access to the dangerous part.

HSE will expect to see the highest practicable level of protection in place with full justification for measures from further down the hierarchy where they are found.

We hope that the above guidance is clear enough to leave you in no doubt about the level of protection required.  If HSE has to investigate any further accidents of this kind we will take into account the additional guidance in this annex & letter we have provided to you/your Company in deciding what enforcement action may be appropriate.

============================

 

*  “Guidance Notes for the Protection of Persons from Rotating Parts & Ejected or Falling Material Involved in the Drilling Process” can be supplied by the. British Drilling Association (BDA)  Tel: 01327 264 62

Article Data Management

Electronic tendering protocol for geotechnical works

- by
  • All electronic information provided on an extranet shall be properly indexed and organised with all information relevant to the geotechnical works being easily identifiable.
  • All electronic information provided on a CD or DVD, or similar, shall be properly indexed and organised with all information relevant to the geotechnical works being easily identifiable.
  • It is preferable that only information specifically relating to the geotechnical works is provided.
  • All electronic information shall be provided in .pdf format that is easy to read and locked so that no unauthorised amendments can be made.  This information may include:
  1. Contract conditions
  2. Specifications and schedules
  3. Site investigation reports, including the borehole logs
  4.  Drawings
  • Drawings shall also be provided unlocked in AutoCAD .dwg format
  • Relevant forms shall also be provided unlocked in MS Word or Excel format.
  • All schedules shall also be provided unlocked in MS Excel format.
  • Site Investigation data shall also be provided in AGS format.