Article Contaminated Land Laboratories

THE EXTENSION OF MCERTS TO CHEMICAL TESTING OF SOILS

- by
Tags: analysis Contaminated Land Land Quality Policy Statement MCERTS

Bruno Guillaume, Arup Geotechnics

In October 2001, the Environment Agency launched proposals to extend its Monitoring Certification Scheme, MCERTS to the chemical testing of soils. The aim of the scheme is to deliver quality environmental measurements with product certification of instruments, the competency certification of personnel and the accreditation of laboratories based on an international standard. In its Land Quality Policy Statement (EAS/2703/1/6/Final 3, available on http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/commondata/105385/lqpol6re.pdf ), the Agency notes that it will only accept chemical testing data on contaminants in soils that has been produced by laboratories that have been accredited to the BS EN ISO/IEC 17025:2000 quality standard for the testing methods used.

The Agency has provided separate MCERTS performance standards in guidance available from www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/mcerts. To allow reasonable time for laboratories to complete validation of their testing methods to the Agency’s specification, the Agency will implement this policy over a period of twelve months from 1st April 2002. From the 31st March 2003*, the Agency will require that all chemical testing data on contaminants in soils, which is presented to it in support of regulatory compliance, must have an accompanying estimate of bias and precision and a description of the testing method used, with the laboratory being accredited to the BS EN ISO/IEC 17025:2000 standard for the test method.

The MCERTS proposals were discussed at the annual Contest meeting in June at which I was asked to speak on “the client’s view”. There is no doubt that the risk-based approach to contaminated sites and especially quantitative assessment requires greater confidence in data from site investigations. All laboratories should operate quality control and quality assurance schemes with calibrations, blanks, sensitivity checks and duplicate testing. UKAS accreditation is often quoted as evidence of quality assurance, but it gives no indication of the suitability of test for the intended purpose of the end user. Proficiency testing and participation in schemes such as Contest, Aquacheck or LEAP is a far better indication of a laboratory’s ability to undertake tests reliably. However, the results of proficiency testing are seldom available to third parties, such as those organisations commissioning tests from the laboratories. MCERTS has the potential to provide an indication of data reliability with performance standards set by an authoritative body.

Laboratories have expressed concerns over certain aspects of the MCERTS proposals as applied to the chemical testing of soils. Sampling is potentially a far greater source of data errors than is laboratory analysis, and there is as yet no comparable scheme addressing sampling, in-situ and field tests. The performance standards requested by the Environment Agency are too demanding and prescriptive for certain parameters (e.g. limit of detection of 20mg/kg for sulphates) and ill defined for certain parameters (e.g. are “polyaromatic hydrocarbons” represented by the sum of USEPA priority 16 or defined by other means?).

The Environment Agency is considering certification schemes to address field aspects including sampling. It is worth noting, at this point, that the Agency has produced guidance, (including Technical aspects of site investigation, P5-065/TR and Secondary model procedures for development of appropriate soil sampling strategies, P5-066/TR), though this has been poorly publicised.

Accreditation of laboratories to BS EN ISO/IEC 17025:2000 (General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories) is significant: clause 4.1.2 states that it is the responsibility of the laboratory to carry out its testing and calibration activities in such a way as to satisfy the needs of the client. The requirement for the laboratory to understand the client’s needs is explicit. Currently, too many clients will commission testing without discussing objectives with the laboratory. Unfortunately, the market is driven by price rather than quality and there are still laboratories that offer methods that are inappropriate. An uninformed client cannot distinguish between good and bad service providers. The introduction of MCERTS and accreditation to BS EN ISO/IEC 17025:2000 could act as a catalyst to encourage the engagement of laboratories earlier in the investigation process, thus ensuring that the laboratory methods are fit for purpose.

MCERTS does not specify the methods of analysis, and proficiency testing shows an astonishingly wide variation in results for certain parameters. This is due to the variety of methods in use and economic pressures in a market where there is over capacity, as well as poor parameter definition and lack of performance standards. Method specification through international standards is an extremely slow process and not favoured in the UK. Research has however been undertaken, funded by the Government and the Environment Agency, on appropriate methods of analysis, and the results of this research are still awaited.

Finally, the risk assessment approach to contaminated land requires further guidance which has yet to be provided by the regulators, including suitability of leaching tests, bio-availability and toxicity assessments. The process of investigation and assessment is complex and potential for errors considerable, but MCERTS should at least address one part of the process and raise the importance of appropriate data.

References: Environment Agency, Performance Standard for Laboratories Undertaking Chemical Testing of Soil, May 2002, Version 1 <http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/commondata/105385/soiltest.pdf> UKAP, Good Regulation and Competitiveness Network – Environment Sector Study, July 2001, <http://www.chemsoc.org/pdf/ukap/enviro.pdf> Hazel Davidson, VAM Bulletin No. 21, 1999, 4 , <http://www.vam.org.uk/news/news_bulletin.asp>

*Note: The intention to implement to this timetable has been withdrawn to allow a more realistic timescale for the accreditation of laboratories. A statement on the EA website reads:

‘Having recently met with UKAS and discussed the concerns of a number of laboratories with respect to the timescales for compliance, the Agency has decided to revise the phased approach to implementation of its requirements to allow a longer lead in time. In addition, the Agency has decided to take this opportunity to review the detail set out in the performance standard with a view to streamlining the additional requirements over EN ISO/IEC 17025:2000 which are already assessed. We will issue a revised implementation policy and performance standard shortly. In the interim, laboratories are urged to seek the accreditation to EN ISO/IEC 17025:2000 for the chemical testing of soils which is already available.

Article Safety

SAFETY MANUAL FOR INVESTIGATION SITES

- by
Tags: health and safety law regulations Safety Manual

The AGS Safety Manual for Investigation Sites was first published in 1992. It has now been extensively revised and extended to reflect the changes in health and safety law and codes of practice which have been introduced in recent years. The manual is designed to provide mangers and supervisors with an easy-to-follow, practical guide to Health and Safety legislation. It will help them understand and maintain the high standards of health and safety required on investigation sites and in offices, both on- and off-site. For ease of use, the manual has been divided into two parts. Part I, which includes Sections 1 to 10 describes in outline current Health and Safety Legislation, while Part II provides guidance and procedures. Each chapter in the manual begins with a list of the main topics covered by the chapter and ends with a list of references from which further and more detailed information may be obtained about the topics covered in the chapter. A model Health and Safety Plan has been included at the end of the manual for users to refine and extend as appropriate to their projects. Whilst some of the legislation is quite specific in its application, other codes of regulations apply to almost every aspect of work. For example, the Display Screen Equipment regulations apply only to workstations incorporating equipment such as VDU’s whereas the Management of Health and Safety at Work regulations apply wherever employees or the self employed are at work. For this reason and to avoid repetition of text, many of the chapters in the manual contain cross- references to other chapters. COST Members Non Members Looseleaf Folder £50 £150 CD* £80 £240 Both £100 £300

* May be used on a company intranet

Article Loss Prevention

INSURANCE CORNER

- by
Tags: Loss of Documents Professional Indemnity policies

What is insurance for loss of original documents? Do we need it?

Traditionally, Loss of Documents, was covered as a specific item under a material damage policy and met the cost of replacing the documents but not the costs of re-sourcing the information that was contained on them. Subsequently, Business Interruption policies were also extended and they would meet the re-sourcing costs. It is now possible to arrange the cover on a joint basis covering both replacement of materials as well as the re-sourcing costs within one overall sum insured.

There has also been a similar extension available under a computer insurance for material and data held thereon.

It addition to the material damage cover, it has been possible to extend Professional Indemnity policies to include Loss of Documents. This commenced as a “Legal Liability to Clients” protection only but gradually extended to include first party documents as well. However, following the enormous Loss of Documents claim in respect of the World Trade Centre the PI extensions are now generally reverting to their original, more limited cover.

The answer as to whether you need the cover is probably – yes – but it does depend very much on what documents you hold and where there are copies.

There is some debate over actual contract documents, where there have been cases of these being unenforceable unless they were the originals, despite the fact that they were computer generated. Although the Courts will generally now accept computer copies, this may not always be the case.

Away from contracts, the concern is regarding documentation and findings related to investigations along with, possibly, designs. Although the finished report may exist, with both Principal and Consultant, you may be called upon to justify your findings in the event of an incident occurring. This could be very costly – or impossible – if the original papers do not exist. The same situation could occur with designs if back-up copies of all relevant documents are not kept.

The key is to make sure that you have copies stored away from the premises and to buy the insurance cover against the worst case scenario.

I am a self employed consultant doing some work for a large firm. They have said that I am covered by their insurance. Can I rely on this?

The initial temptation is to say – “Yes” – on the basis that if the cover isn’t there then you are in a contractural situation, where you would be able to sue them in respect of any actual loss.

However, let’s look at the situation a bit more closely.

1. What insurances do they say that they are providing cover under for you? Any large business would have a wide portfolio of insurances, many of which would be irrelevant as far as you are concerned.

2. Have you received confirmation in writing? If so have they specified exactly what covers you would have benefit from? This is particularly important when you want to consider what liabilities you are still carrying yourself.

3. What are their indemnity limits? It would be easy to assume that just because they are “large” that they will have sufficient limits to cover any eventuality and that they must be bigger than any limits that you would purchase yourself. Are you happy with the limits?

4. How are you covered? Are you just noted as having an interest or are you a joint insured for the project? If it’s the first then there could still be a possibility of their insurers subrogating rights against you if you were negligent in respect of the incident concerned.

5. Are there any limiting terms and conditions? For example, is the policy subject to a large deductible, which will mean that you have to pay this sum off of any claim. Or is there a contribution clause, which says that if you have any insurance in your own name then it could be brought into contribution with the main policy in the event of an incident.

6. Should you be concerned regarding the security of the insurers? If you’ve not had any say in the insurance are you sure that the insurers concerned will still be there to meet any claim and will not have ceased trading.

In conclusion therefore it would be correct to say that there is no legal barrier to accepting the situation but beware of what you are receiving.

Article Business Practice

INSITE FOR SCHOOLS

- by
Tags: built environment civil engineering construction geotechnical engineers skill shortages students variety of careers

In a bid to overcome skill shortages, 15,000 copies of NCE insite go to schools and colleges every term to tell students, teachers, parents and careers advisor’s the potential and variety of careers available in civil engineering, construction and the built environment.

The AGS is a patron of Insite and helps to sponsor a ‘Ground’ related page in each issue.

Do you have a project that will catch the imagination of young would-be geotechnical engineers?

A photograph with a teenage icon in the background (or foreground!)?

Is your remediation project saving the planet? (or the fish, the flora, the fauna …)

In short, anything with youth appeal is wanted. This is not an opportunity for self promotion. It’s an opportunity to communicate the excitement, the challenge, the variety and the satisfaction that keeps you here.

Contributions can be sent at any time – to the AGS for forwarding to the editor

Article

GROUND FORUM

- by
Tags: collaborative voice ground based associations Ground Forum legislation

We have now been a member of Ground Forum for a number of years and the Committee receives regular reports from the AGS representative (usually the Chairman). Most of the matters have been very broad and general as you would expect from this sort of group but the foundation has now been formed and there are some significant initiatives now being developed.

The members of Ground Forum are :

Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists (AGS) British Drilling Association (BDA) British Geotechnical Association (BGA) British Tunnelling Society (BTS) Federation of Piling Specialists (FPS) Engineering Group of the Geological Society (EGGS) Institute for Mining and Metallurgy (IoM3) Pipe Jacking Association (PJA) UK Chapter of IGS (IGS)

The group was formed to be an umbrella organisation for all ground based associations and to give them a collaborative voice on issues that affected all the industry. It is important to note that members of the Forum have access to the Construction Industry Council and that CIC and other very high level policy making bodies consider Ground Forum to be their route to the associations, societies and hence the professions. We have to make sure that we take advantage of that route to pass our issues and questions back up to the higher authorities.

Issues

1) Insurance

Since the problems of September 11th 2001 the insurance market has reduced in size and the problems of obtaining all types of insurance from Employer’s Liability to Professional Indemnity have increased. Discussions between the BTS and the Association of British Insurers have taken the tunnelling industry from a point where tunnel construction was uninsurable to an agreed code of procedures on which insurance can be based.

This form of collaboration between the Association and the Insurance body may well become a common process in the future for all the member groups unless the insurance situation eases.

The development of this draft (at the moment) code is to promote best practice and insurers will require everybody to comply with it. The document will be supplementary to existing legislation and is now well underway towards a more complete draft.

FPS have also had discussions with insurers and the main causes of increased premiums have been given as September 11th, Stock Market performance and catch-up for the last 30 years.

Following the BTS code development there was discussion on codes of conduct in general and all Societies have been asked to submit any documents that they have to see if the whole situation could be eased by the development of a general “Geotechnical Code of Conduct”.

2) Research and Development

Government funding for research is driven by global issues and the EEC is now moving towards large grants for collaborative research between a number of parties.

The “blue-sky” research is not being funded.

The proposal from Ground Forum is to organise a high level seminar with representation from Government, manufacturing, design organisations etc. contributing. All members of Ground Forum would have input and the objective would be to try to influence “UK Limited” research into Ground Engineering in general.

The raising of the profile of Ground Forum is also an aim, not just for self promotion, but to increase the awareness of the importance of the ground-based disciplines.

I hope that AGS Members see this as a conduit to influential places and people and if there are any issues that can usefully be put through this route then we should start to develop them.

Keith Gabriel AGS, Member of Ground Forum

Article Contaminated Land Laboratories

A NEW LOOK AT GEOPHYSICS

- by
Tags: geophysics Site Investigation

“We used geophysics once – It didn’t work!” – This was the somewhat challenging response which the author received from a young lady engineer at a water exhibition in the recent past. And, with the passing years of comment and observation, not an entirely unexpected reaction, for the use of geophysics in environmental and engineering projects has had a chequered, and not always positive, history.

Why is this? The search for, and exploitation of, oil reserves would not be where it is now if seismic methods, in particular, had not been available or developed to the current sophistication. Clearly engineers and environmental scientists are dealing with a shallow geological section – so shallow it can be dug up with a JCB – or at least penetrated by a set of relatively inexpensive shallow boreholes. But do we always want or need to act intrusively? Can we really characterise the inhomogeneous sub-surface with a few, one-dimensional, boreholes? YES, we say. We want to do it that way because that is how we were taught. We are suspicious of something which is remote sensing, something which smacks of Black Magic. We want to get into the soil/rock. Feel it. Touch it. Smell it. Well – can you do it over a hectare and be sure that you know all the local changes hidden there? How many boreholes at one-metre centres would this be?

Clearly geophysics will not always prove to be the cheapest solution. Where the ground conditions are known to be uniformly changing across the site and there is no anthropogenic interference, what better than a few boreholes to prove what was known (or at least suspected) to be the case. But what about the other sites where conditions are heterogeneous and man’s past activity has left a legacy?

Using geophysical methodologies, the variability of sub-surface properties can be measured on a grid, along a series of profiles, down or between boreholes. Two-dimensional profiles can be constructed and, given sufficient data, the three-dimensional sub-surface structure deduced. The science is volumetric and (apart from when used in boreholes) non-invasive. It provides spatial data. As a reconnaissance tool it can be used to identify the most technically effective borehole locations for the geoscientific programme. It rarely supplants the use of borehole measurements which are required to provide “ground truth” and calibration. It can considerably improve the understanding of the variability of subsurface conditions and, used wisely, can greatly improve the cost-effectiveness of a site investigation programme.

Early guidance on the use of geophysics by an experienced professional is essential if the programme of works is to be of material value to the investigation programme. The 1993 report by the Site Investigation Steering Group of the Institute of Civil Engineers, “Site Investigation in Construction”, distinguished between the Geotechnical Contractor and the Geotechnical Adviser. A similar distinction can be made between the Geophysical Contractor, chosen for his practical abilities and specific skills, and the Geophysical Adviser, providing an independent view to the client as a consultant. The Advisor understands not only the science, but also the capabilities of the contractor and the needs of the engineer and environmentalist.

For the requirements of the ground investigation to be achieved it is important that the needs of the main consultant and client are fully understood and the abilities of the current geophysical “state of the art” appreciated. With objectives adequately defined and site constraints understood, the most appropriate method can be chosen for the situation, the survey line layout optimised and the best station spacing identified to achieve a useful data set.

Interpretation of these data to arrive at a meaningful evaluation is dependent on a basic knowledge of the ground conditions at the survey site from which a model can be developed to fit the geophysical data measured. It has to be appreciated that these data relate to the lateral and vertical variation of the physical properties of the underlying soil or rock strata. The integration of “ground truth” and the derivation of a sub-surface model are dependent on close collaboration between the geophysics team and the engineering and environmental staff.

This link is vital and allows the development of a site model drawn from the corporate experience of the team – creating confidence in the method and the results obtained.

The geophysical approach should be to ask a series of questions up-front:

Objectives: What is the nature of the site and are there physical constraints anywhere? What are the perceived problems in this area and what accuracy is required? Can these be addressed by a particular methodology or is a combination needed?

Deliverables: What does the client’s consultant need/expect? How does he want it presented? Is the time scale realistic? What control may be available? Is the data to be integrated?

Methodology: How should the survey be undertaken? Can the client afford this best approach? What can be achieved by a more limited study? What techniques are really most useful? Is geophysics really appropriate?

Only by careful pre-appraisal of a site and the desired objectives can the “didn’t work” tag be avoided.

Whilst most geophysical methods were originally developed by the mineral and oil prospecting professions, most have now been refined to provide higher resolution solutions for shallow engineering and environmental studies. Not to be mistaken for a single “remedy”, geophysics has many facets: –

Seismic operates in Refraction, Reflection and Transmission modes. It has applications in depth to bedrock, reconnaissance of layered structures, foundation studies and rock fracture conditions and detailed geological structure. A wide range of resolution is available.

Gravity measurements can identify shallow voids, fractured or weathered zones in rockhead as well as define fault locations and basic geological structure.

The surface extent of natural radioactivity is related to the underlying geology. Thermography is also an areal method which can provide information on shallow sub-surface disturbed areas, drainage zones and springs. Electrical methods using direct or low frequency currents have a value in determining water bearing layers, measuring thickness of weathering and overburden, and identifying faulted or polluted zones.

Electromagnetic techniques with either a remote transmitter or controlled close transmitter can assist in structural and stratigraphic studies as well as locating manmade buried objects. The methods are also used in water prospection and archaeology.

Magnetic data are often used both in a reconnaissance mode and in detailed surveys for archaeological and pollution studies for detection of ferro-magnetic objects and related features.

Ground Penetrating Radar has gained popularity in civil engineering for identifying buried pipes, obstacles and cavities and non-destructive testing of road surfaces and concrete structures. For further information on these techniques, CIRIA, in conjunction with the Engineering Group of the Geological Society, has produced a useful reference book “Geophysics in Engineering Investigations” (CIRIA C562). The Environment Agency also has incorporated geophysical “Investigation Method Summary Sheets” within its two volume Technical Report “Technical Aspects of Site Investigation” (P5-065/TR).

The author is a specialist in the use of geophysics for near-surface projects and keeps in touch with several European centres that are further refining and developing technologies. Whilst many of these have benefited from the considerable advances in the use of geophysics for petroleum exploration, a great deal of research is now directed to particular applications in the engineering and environmental areas. Can you afford not to gain the benefit of this experience in expanding your knowledge of the application of geophysics to ground investigations?

John C R Arthur Top-Hole Site Studies Ltd

Article Data Management

AGS FORMAT – ARE YOU UNDERMINING ITS USE?

- by
Tags: data Edition 3 electronic information Piling contractors

One of the benefits of using the AGS Format for the transfer of SI data is that it can be used in any software programme without the need to re-key. However FPS Members report that by the time the data reaches them it has often been translated into *pdf format and become unusable except as a hard copy report.

Piling contractors have been slow to adopt the format and to acknowledge its advantages. They will be even slower, however, if they are denied the benefits.

Registered User Logo

If you are a registered user of Edition 3, you will have received a logo, as part of your registration pack, which identifies you as a registered user. This logo should be used on reports, documents and data. It will indicate to the end user that at some stage electronic data has been produced. In many cases (even if the *pdf problem has been avoided) the data travels through several hands, and arrives with the pile designer in hard copy only. The presence of the logo will alert the data user that it will be worth while making enquiries up the line to obtain electronic information.

USE THE LOGO and let everybody benefit.                  

Article Loss Prevention

RESULTS OF THE CONTRACTUAL RISK QUESTIONNAIRE ISSUED BY THE AGS LOSS PREVENTION WORKING GROUP IN 2002

- by
Tags: geoenvironmental and geotechnical work questionnaires questions risk

120 questionnaires were issued, 18 responses were received, giving a 15% return rate

Of the responding members, 88% were consultants, 32% were contractors and 6% specialists, indicating a number of members operating in both the consultancy and contracting fields. No laboratories responded. The company size of respondents was evenly spread with 25% below 10 employees and 37.5% each between 10-100 and over 100 employees.

A number of the questions related to ‘risk’ and how it is perceived and managed by members. The general perception of risk over the last decade would appear to remain relatively constant, but that awareness has increased. Almost unanimously, respondents agreed that geo-environmental work carried more risk than geotechnical work alone and concerns were noted that Clients’ perception of risk and the role of PI insurance cover are often incorrect.

Nearly all respondents feel they were not sufficiently financially compensated for the risks they take, given that the risk of consequential losses is likely to be high, even though the risk of something going wrong is generally low . The predominant impression is that risk is unfairly allocated to consultant/contractor, often due to the wording of contracts produced by legal practitioners, who are aiming for nil risk transfer and have little practical understanding of the restrictions on PII cover due to pollution and contamination. This perception is magnified when margins are tight, but in reality Clients only get what they pay for.

Typically contracts appear to be divided in four forms, standard, client specific, in house and exchange of letters, but the form does not appear to affect the acceptability of a contract. In deciding whether to accept either a geotechnical or geoenvironmental contract, the prime issue was consistently the client relationship, followed by the terms and conditions and fees. The capacity to undertake the project was also a serious consideration but of less perceived importance. The least influential considerations were possibility of and size of potential claims and the project structure.

It is apparent that most companies adopt a conservative but pragmatic approach, when asked to accept clients’ terms and conditions. Whilst some members accept these contracts as non-negotiable, nearly 30% of respondents refer non-standard documents for legal review. A further 25% routinely challenge objectionable provisions with respect to key issues, and a further 25% do not worry unduly about terms relating to liability, as claims are generally rare. An alternative approach adopted in relation to contract terms is that they are deemed effectively irrelevant where good QM and experienced staff limits the potential for negligence.

An assessment of client contract practise identified the Utilities, e.g. Lattice, Railtrack, as having the most aggressive contract practises, whilst other professionals were believed to be the least aggressive. It is observed that it is often the larger, near monopoly clients who try to impose the most onerous conditions and are unwilling to accept a realistic proportion of the risk. The majority of members are concerned about Client specific contractual clauses and NEVER accept contractual clauses including unlimited liability or warranties, Client rights to assign and power of attorney and ‘fitness for purpose’, but they appear willing to accept PI cover requirements.

However, an overall impression appears of members being increasingly aware of the risk involved in geoenvironmental and geotechnical work and the areas where these risks occur. Whilst some are still prepared to carry on with this knowledge, there is evidence of a number of members being unwilling to accept unbalanced contracts unchallenged and, in some cases, will, if necessary, refuse to accept commissions under certain circumstances.

Article Business Practice Data Management Executive Loss Prevention

‘LATE PAYMENT’ LEGISLATION IS COMING INTO FORCE

- by
Tags: determine entitlements interest late payment legislation

The revised ‘late payment legislation’ is coming into force on the 7 August 2002, from this date all businesses and public sector bodies can claim interest for late payment.

The ‘late payment legislation’ is composed of the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998, as amended and supplemented by the Late Payment of Commercial Debts Regulations 2002, which combined introduce a number of changes and new entitlements including:

  • To allow creditors to claim a fixed sum of compensation should late payment happen. The compensation is to cover debt recovery costs.

  • To allow all businesses and public sector bodies to challenge contractual terms that do not provide a substantial remedy for late payment.

  • To provide small and medium enterprises (SMEs) with the right to have appropriate organisations act on their behalf and challenge contractual terms that try to remove or alter their right to statutory interest.

  • To create a reference rate which will be used to determine late payment interest rate (the late payment interest rate is the reference rate + 8%).

Guide available for businesses

Better payment practice and Business link have produced “A User’s Guide to late payment legislation” which can be downloaded from the Better Payment Practice Group’s website www.payontime.co.uk/downloads/latepayment download.html. It may also be ordered free of charge from DTI Publications Orderline, Admail 528, London, SW1W 8YT, tel. 0870 1502500, fax. 0870 15022333 or by email at sbspubs@eclogistics.co.uk.

Article Contaminated Land Laboratories

CLEA LAUNCH

- by
Tags: Assessment of Land CLEA model Land Contamination Land Exposure Soil Guideline Values Toxicological

The official launch of the CLEA model took place on 17 March 2002, covering:-

  • CLR 7 Assessment of Risks to Human Health from Land Contamination. An overview of the Development of Soil Guideline Values and Related Research

  • CLR8 Priority contaminants for the Assessment of Land

  • CLR9 Contaminants in soil: Collation of Toxicological and Intake Values for Humans

  • CLR10 The Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment Model.

  • Soil Guideline Values: SGV1 Arsenic; SGV3 Cadmium; SGV4 Chromium; SVG5 Mercury; SGV7 Nickel, SGV9 Selenium; SGV10 Lead.

Much of the documentation (but not the model) can be downloaded from the web.

Publications CLR7-10, Tox reports and SGV reports are available to download from the DEFRA website.
CLEA webpages can be found at www.environment-agency.gov.uk by navigating to the Land Quality and then to the Contaminated Land section.

Article Uncategorized Contaminated Land Loss Prevention

SITE INVESTIGATION SHOULD BE FOR CONCRETE DURABILITY IN ADDITION TO SOIL STRENGTH PARAMETERS

- by
Tags: brownfield concrete foundations Site Investigation

All too often Site Investigation work is seen solely to provide soil strength parameters to enable economical foundation design. There is a need for the site investigation industry to make clients more aware that the aggressive nature of the ground should also be accurately determined if adequate precautions are to be taken in the design of a durable concrete for use in the foundations.

The problems associated with the thaumasite form of sulfate attack (TSA) have been well documented and in August 2001 BRE Special Digest 1 was published. Part 1 of the digest is particularly relevant to the site investigation industry. Without the necessary soil and ground water testing to determine the extent of those aggressive chemicals present at a particular site the concrete cannot be designed in accordance with best practice. It is where possible beneficial to have results from both groundwater and soil samples.

Many Site Investigation reports are issued without fundamental site-related parameters to enable the adequate design of the concrete.

The site assessment procedures should vary depending on whether the site can be defined as natural ground, brownfield containing industrial wastes or pyritic ground, reference to BRE Special Digest 1 should be made for full details.

In general it will be necessary to determine the water soluble sulfate in 2:1 water/soil extracts and the pH in 2.5:1 water/soil extracts. Many Site Investigations where they report any chemical testing only show an occasional soluble sulfate result which is often inadequate to determine the Design Classification for the concrete mix. Where the sulfate in the soil extract exceeds 3.7 g/l SO4 or in the groundwater sample exceeds 3.0 g/l SO4 it is necessary to also determine the Magnesium content. The mobility or otherwise of the groundwater on site also has an affect and should be established.

Where a site is brownfield it will generally be necessary to obtain the Chloride and Nitrate content in both the soil and groundwater samples if the aggressive chemical environment for the concrete is to be accurately determined. Where Pyritic ground conditions are anticipated more substantive testing is required to enable the total potential Sulfate and hence the concrete design requirements to be determined, for full details reference should be made to BRE Special Digest 1.

It should be apparent from the above that greater consideration needs to be given to determining the aggressive chemical environment at the site investigation stage than is currently the case, to determine site-related parameters for strength in one site investigation and then undertake further work at a later date to enable the Aggressive Chemical Environment for Concrete to be determined is no way for the industry to improve its standards or its advice to clients.

It should also be noted that BRE Special Digest 1 has superseded BRE 363.

D.Brightman Technical Manager, Rock & Alluvium

Article Contaminated Land Loss Prevention

ENVIRONMENTAL INSURANCE

- by
Tags: environmental insurance solutions loss prevention risk exposures

The AGS Contaminated Land Working Group organised a seminar in July 2001 to provide an update on the latest position of environmental insurance. Seminar presentations were provided by speakers from both insurance brokers and underwriters (Mike Patterson of Willis, Tony Lennon of ECS, Ian Evans of CERTA and Richard Davies of AIG).

Introduction

The regeneration of brownfield land has been hindered by the absence of a coherent redevelopment framework, the entrenched attitudes of some regulators and the previous availability of greenfield alternatives.

Concerns over the inherent complexity of the Contaminated Land regime and its ambiguous liability principles are causing ongoing uncertainty in the property industry. Research carried out on behalf of the RICS has demonstrated that concern about contamination is still the major barrier to brownfield land regeneration.

The main concerns tend to centre around financial uncertainties such as escalating clean up costs, the long term liability exposures and the potential impact of stigma. The risks are compounded by a perceived lack of clarity in relation to the consistent enforcement of the new regime by the local authorities (and regional Environment Agency offices) and the practical application of the risk assessment process

Notwithstanding these concerns, Government policy, new fiscal incentives and other commercial pressures are encouraging the mainstream property sector to reconsider its historic aversion to land with a previous industrial usage.

The evolution of new environmental insurance solutions over the past five years has had a significant impact on brownfield land development. New risk transfer products are being used to remove residual risk exposures and maximise financial certainty.

It is recognised that insurance should be considered in the context of a risk management strategy as indicated below:

RISK IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION

RISK RESPONSE

AVOID – abstain from activity or purchase
CONTROL – loss prevention / monitoring
RETENTION – retain the risk
TRANSFER – insurance, contract, warranty

This article will review the main environmental insurance products and markets as outlined in the seminar.

Environmental Risk Exposures

Most operations and business ventures are exposed to environmental risk. Practical sources of risk arise from three sources a) Operational risk – may lead to pollution at some time in the future and typically arise form sources such as industrial plant, vehicles and transportation, fuel and chemical storage or waste products b) Historical risks – relate to past activities that may have left a legacy or dormant or active pollution. c) Contractual risk – liabilities and warranties agreed in contract such as sale and purchase agreements, leases, indemnities and warranties etc.

Many organisation perceive that environmental risks are covered by their existing public liability or property damage insurance however these usually have pollution exclusion clauses and do not cover own site clean-up.

Potential consequences of these risks include own site / off-site damage and clean-up costs, business interruption, regulatory authority notices, legal costs, bodily injury and property damage.

The Players

The design and placement of an appropriate environmental insurance solution usually requires input form many parties. Policies cover potentially enormous loss scenarios and may represent significant capital outlay. It is therefore important to recognise the pitfalls and obtain objective advise.

The players potentially involved comprise:

“PLAYER” ROLE BROKERS Professional intermediaries who have access to the whole market and range of products, acts in Clients interest to obtain best solution. Not to be confused with underwriting agents or insurers eg. Willis, Aon, Marsh,

AGENTS Acts on behalf of a specific insurer offering their products and conditions eg. CERTA are agents for Allianz Cornhill insurers

INSURERS Underwrite the risk eg AIG, Allianz, ECS / XL Capital, Zurich

REINSURERS Insure the insurers eg Swiss Re LLOYDS Private and corporately funded syndicates

INSUREDS Varied but includes industry, commerce, banks / pension funds, governments etc etc

The Products

The main environmental insurance products include :

  • Historical Contamination Cover Insurance can be arranged for liabilities associated with pre-existing contamination ie not liabilities associated with current activities or future “new” pollution. Cover is typically provided for both third party damage claims (resulting from off-site migration) and statutory clean up costs. It can however be extended to cover issues such as business interruption or economic loss associated with contamination (eg rental income, loss in property values etc). Policy periods typically vary between 5 and 15 years.

Policies can be worded so that they are fully transferable and often jointly insure various parties (eg vendor, developer, acquirer and financial backers etc).

  • Remediation Cost Cap Insurance Cost cap insurance is designed to minimise the uncertainty associated with clean up projects by providing the extra funds to complete the works in the event of a cost overrun resulting from the discovery of additional contamination, failure of the remedial technology etc. It is often combined with a ‘wrap up’ cover to protect against pollution liabilities associated with the actual clean up operations and the long term effectiveness of the scheme.

  • Contractors Pollution Liability Remediation and construction operations present an on-going risk of pollution or contamination. Public liability policies typically exclude gradual pollution risks and will not cover any on-site remediation costs. Specialist cover is however available to indemnify the contractors against on-going pollution risks resulting from unanticipated discharges, leakages or spillages etc

Future Pollution Cover (Operational Pollution Risks) Public liability policies generally provide cover only for the costs of third party damages and injury arising from pollution incidents that are sudden, accidental and unexpected. Most PL policies do not therefore provide cover for claims arising from gradual pollution such as leaking underground storage tanks. In addition PL policies do not cover clean up of the insured’s own land and may not respond to clean-up orders from the regulatory authorities. Future Pollution cover is designed to “plug” these gaps providing for own site clean-up, claims from neighbours for damages or injury, legal defence costs and clean-up notices from regulatory authorities. Such insurance is available for policy periods between one and five years.

In many situations the correct business risk solution involves the combination of historical contamination cover and future pollution cover for example. This provides cover for claims for third party damage and injury arising from historical contamination migrating off site and future spills, run-offs and leaks. It also provides for clean-up orders for the insured’s own site or third party land from enforcement authorities – for example remediation notices from the local authority.

Where sites are heavily contaminated and remediation is required, cost cap cover can be placed to limit escalation of costs, backed up by historic contamination cover to provide assurance for financial consequences of potential residual contamination not dealt with by the remediation.

The Finale

Most industrial operations and business ventures are exposed to environmental risk. Constantly tightening legislation coupled with an active merger and acquisition climate means that these risk area becoming more significant. Environmental insurance is providing a rapidly expanding armoury of solutions to these risk exposures. The environmental insurance market in the UK has seen substantial increases in insurance premium volume and innovative deals to demonstrate the value of environmental insurance. Willis estimate up to £25 million in premium was written in the London insurance markets during 2000 and this figure was almost doubled during 2001. This represents very rapid growth – five years ago premium was negligible. Insurance should form only part of an integrated risk management approach to environmental liability exposures but can be a valid and real part of the solution.

For further information please contact Fiona Rooney (Director – Environment Practice, Willis Ltd)
Tel 0118 949 8035, rooneyf@willis.com