News

Update from the AGS regarding COVID-19

- by
Tags: Featured

With the ongoing situation of COVID-19, the AGS would like to remind AGS members of the current guidance. Businesses and workplaces should encourage their employees to work at home, wherever possible; if someone becomes unwell in the workplace with a new, continuous cough or a high temperature, they should be sent home and advised to follow the advice to stay at home for 14 days and employees should be reminded to wash their hands for 20 seconds more frequently.

The AGS are continually reviewing the situation and the decision has been made to postpone all AGS 2020 events; AGS Annual Conference (which was due to take place on 2nd April), Laboratories, Instrumentation and Monitoring Conference (which was due to take place on 15th July) and Data Management (which was due to take place on 23rd September, but has now been moved to 22nd September 2021). Further details about all three conferences will be released in due course.

For those who attend AGS Working Group meetings, we will be using remote and conferencing technologies to hold these meetings until further notice and details of these will be circulated with the meeting notification as usual.

The AGS Secretariat are currently working remotely, but we are checking our voicemail twice daily and aim to get back to you as soon as we can. We can also be contacted by email ags@ags.org.uk.

News

Important Notice: AGS Annual Conference 2020 Postponed

- by
Tags: Featured

The AGS have taken the decision to postpone the AGS Annual Conference to later on this year.

After much discussion, The AGS have decided to postpone due to the current spread of COVID-19. This will help to reduce the risk to all involved, and we wanted to give you as much advance warning as possible.

The AGS are looking to hold the conference later in the year and further details will be announced in due course.

News

AGS Magazine – February 2020

- by
Tags: Featured

The Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists are pleased to announce the February 2020 issue of their publication; AGS Magazine. To view the magazine click here.

This free, publication focuses on geotechnics, engineering geology and geoenvironmental engineering as well as the work and achievements of the AGS.

There are a number of excellent articles in this month’s issue including;
AGS Annual Conference 2020 – Page 4
On Stoney Ground: Re-Visited – Page 8
AGS Commercial Risks and How to Manage Them: Conference Review – Page 12
Health and Safety – Lego style – Page 14
Emergency rescue from a trial pit: Are you prepared? – Page 16
Q&A with Phil Crowcroft of ERM – Page 20

Advertising opportunities are available within future issues of the publication. To view rates and opportunities please view our media pack by clicking HERE.

If you have a news story, article, case study or event which you’d like to tell our editorial team about please email ags@ags.org.uk. Articles should act as opinion pieces and not directly advertise a company. Please note that the publication of editorial and advertising content is subject to the discretion of the editorial board.

Article

Q&A with Phil Crowcroft

- by
Tags: Featured

Full Name: Phil Crowcroft
Job Title: Technical Fellow
Company: ERM

Phil Crowcroft is a Technical Fellow in the Asset Management team of ERM based in the Edinburgh office.  He has over 40 years experience in dealing with land contamination, brownfield regeneration and natural resources, combining his training as a civil and geotechnical engineer with experience on the broader aspects of the environment such as chemistry and hydrogeology. Phil was SiLC Chair of the Board (2011-2019) and the PTP (2008-2017). He is moving into retirement in 2020, and joining his wife in running a vintage department store in Berwick upon Tweed.

 What inspired you to get into the brownfield regeneration field?

My fear of chemistry pushed me to take maths, physics and geography A levels, and I realised then that the ground and what lies below was really where my interest and enthusiasm lay. This led on to a Bachelors degree in civil engineering and a Masters in geotechnical engineering. After 2 years work in mainstream construction, I moved jobs in 1978 to join a site investigation contractor, and discovered the huge variety of work and challenges that the ground poses to every building and civil engineering project. I also realised that I couldn’t leave chemistry behind because of the range of brownfield sites which were coming to development. Undertaking investigations on gasworks and landfill sites in the 1980s also highlighted the the very rudimentary state of understanding the challenges posed by such sites present.

What does a typical working day entail?

There is and has never been a typical working day, which is part of the fun of being in this business. Looking back over the last 45 years, I have enjoyed the challenge of helping to develop the approach to dealing with brownfield sites, whether as a contractor, a consultant or a regulator. But I’ve also tried to balance work with home life, so you won’t catch me working late into the evenings, unless I’m away from home, which perhaps was far more often than I ever expected.

Are there any cases which you are particularly proud to have advised on?

From a continuity point of view, I am proud to have worked on the contaminated land aspects of the EIA for high speed rail, starting in 1990 on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link from Folkestone to London, then since 2012, from London to Birmingham and Birmingham to Manchester and Leeds. I’ve worked alongside some brilliant people on this major project, and I am a huge fan of the railways, having spent far too much of my life sitting in traffic jams on motorways.

I am also very pleased to have worked on national guidance since the 1990s, including Industry Profiles, NFHA guidance, Model Procedures and the WDA Manual. I am sad that government policy has swept away great centres of excellence such as the Environment Agency Contaminated Land and Groundwater Centre, and has abandoned the production of guidance.

What are the most challenging aspects of your role?

I think that developing a capability in providing expert witness services has been the scariest thing I have done, but over time, it becomes less scary and more thought-provoking. I’m lucky to have developed an understanding of what we actually considered to be best practice at any moment of time since 1980, and I have most of the guidance since that time in my attic. I have a memo I wrote in 1985 telling fellow geotechnical engineers how to use ICRCL guidance. How sad is that? My career is finishing off with two cases in court, with the exciting prospect of being cross-examined by articulate barristers intent on your downfall. The battle commences….

What changes would you like to see implemented in the industry?

I would like to see the allocation of sensible government budgets to support development of relevant guidance covering the brownfield industry, and the support by public funding of research bodies such as CLAIRE, CIRIA and SiLC .

Why do you think SiLC is important to the brownfield regeneration field?

Lord Rogers and his Urban Task Force recognised in 1989 the need for competent people to work in a sector which embraces many different disciplines, and within 2 years, a working group comprising public and private sector bodies had developed the scheme and got it up and running. It continues to this day, and this is testimony to the need for and value delivered by such a scheme. My most recent litigation has centred on whether a consultant was negligent in dealing with a brownfield site, and much of the discussion has been around whether people were competent to carry out the roles they played. SiLC delivers confidence that an individual has core competence in their own subject area, whilst recognising and appreciating the parallel skills which are needed to deliver the reclamation and redevelopment of brownfield sites.

What has been one of the highlights of your career?

Over the last 40 years, I have been lucky to have worked with, and been responsible for, groups of talented people who deliver day in day out on brownfield projects. I don’t know how many job offers I have made, but I know many people who it has been my privilege to offer jobs to, who have then gone on to run their own teams, and lead the way in their own subject areas. I have managed, and then been managed by some, and they make me so proud to have helped them start their careers, and achieved success. Thank you to all of you.

Article Safety

Health and Safety – Lego Style

- by
Tags: Featured

The AGS Safety Working Group hosted the ‘Safety in Mind’ conference at the National Motorcycle Museum, Solihull, UK, on Thursday, 21 November 2019. At the conference, leading industry experts presented topics on health and safety in the geotechnical and geoenvironmental industry.

RSK’s Gerwyn Leigh and Roseanna Bloxham presented. Gerwyn spoke on ‘the truth about service avoidance’, and Roseanna held a Lego workshop entitled ‘health and safety awareness in the field’.

The workshop was a 30-minute crash course on how to manage a site investigation safety. As a starter activity, delegates were given Lego mock-ups of site situations to spot NMPI’s. They were all identified with only a few obscure ones missed. The photo exercise aimed to promote the importance of being aware of what’s happening on the site to ensure that everyone is working safely and the importance of intervention.

The delegates then got involved in the main part of the session. They had to decide where to place their borehole taking into account site constraints. They then had to plan the work using Lego, marking safe-working areas, ensuring that public access is restricted, managing traffic, and keeping the site open with as little disruption as possible. Lego barriers were used to demarcate safe-working areas, cars were used as test vehicles to see if access was possible, and ‘man at work’ signs were positioned in visible open areas to warn the public.

It was interesting to see that while the borehole position was similar for all groups, all their approaches to the site set up were slightly different. Some groups tried to reduce the working area to ensure public access, while others created larger-working areas for their staff. No answer is correct, the aim of the task was to raise awareness of what you need to consider when planning an investigation and give project managers an understanding of what challenges our engineers can face daily.

All 25 delegates were involved in the task and worked well in their teams. There were many discussions about what size working areas were required and what affect this would have on surrounding infrastructure. Many of the delegates were impressed with how useful Lego is as a tool for site planning and commented that they would like to use it in their companies as a tool to aid engineers.

Article provided by Roseanna Bloxham, Senior Geo-Environmental Engineer at RSK

 

 

Article Contaminated Land

On Stoney Ground Re-Visited

- by
Tags: Featured

The way a soil sample is prepared prior to analysis varies between laboratories. In the September 2011 issue of AGS News we presented an article entitled ‘On Stoney Ground’ in which we discussed the results of a sample preparation survey of the main commercial MCerts accredited laboratories.  The survey revealed significant differences in whether stones were removed or crushed prior to the analysis for metals, whether PAHs were tested on as received or air-dried samples, and in the solvents used for PAH and TPH extraction.  We have recently repeated our laboratory survey to see if the laboratories have become more ‘standardised’ over the last decade.

In 2015 the Standing Committee of Analysts (established by the Department of the Environment in 1972) published ‘The preparation and pre-treatment of potentially contaminated soils and associated materials’ (the “Blue Book” method) which provides authoritative guidance on recommended methods for sample preparation.  The Blue Book states that ‘it is crucial that the client/supplier of the samples is aware of the default laboratory method and specifies the requirements for each batch of samples submitted ‘.  However, our experience suggests that the majority of those scheduling chemical analyses are unaware of the potential differences between laboratory sample preparation methods.

Metals Analysis

The Blue Book acknowledges that contaminants are not distributed evenly between the fines and the larger particles within a soil and presents two “standardised” methods for preparing soil samples prior to chemical analysis.  In one method the whole sample is dried, ground and homogenised; this method is for general site assessment and waste classification.  In the other method only the <2mm fraction is analysed following sieving; this method is used for human health risk assessment.

In 2010 just under half of the laboratories surveyed dried and crushed the whole sample for the metals analysis, one third removed the stones greater than 10mm, two laboratories removed the stones greater than 2mm and a single laboratory removing all ‘inert’ stones. If we assume that laboratories are not receiving samples containing particles larger than one third of the tub diameter, two thirds of laboratories are now drying and crushing the whole sample, but only one laboratory is following the alternative <2mm sieve preparation method.  The remaining quarter of the laboratories are not following a Blue Book method and remove stones of between 4mm and 10mm.

But Does it Matter?

If a sample that contains a significant proportion of metal-rich clinker or slag was submitted to a range of MCerts accredited laboratories, two- thirds of the laboratories would report greater concentrations of the metallic contaminants than the remaining third.  This remaining third could be expected to produce a range of results for the same sample, dependent upon the particle size of the slag and clinker.  Only one of the fifteen MCerts accredited laboratories that responded to the survey would by default, produce a result that would be appropriate for the assessment of the likely potential human health exposure routes.  Furthermore, whilst most commercial laboratories can offer the analysis of the <2mm fraction, in accordance with the Blue Book method, they report that it is unusual for them to be requested to do so.  It would therefore appear that where a human health risk assessment is being carried out, the significance of the particle size being analysed is frequently not being considered by those scheduling the analyses.  Alternatively, analyses are being scheduled for multiple purposes (human health risk assessment, waste classification, pipe selection, groundwater risk etc.) and an overly conservative approach to human health risk assessment is being adopted.

PAH Analysis

A decade ago, just under half of the laboratories reported that they tested the as-received sample; this figure has now risen to two-thirds.  Those that dry and crush or sieve the sample do so at temperatures ranging from 20°C to 37°C.

Samples for PAH analysis are required to be stored in a glass container, under cold conditions, to minimise the potential losses by volatilisation.  Indeed, if they are not, they may be listed as being a ‘deviating’ sample under the MCerts scheme.  It is therefore surprising to see that these same samples can then be air dried at 37°C without such losses occurring.

It may be that, as PAHs in soil are typically present in a complex mixture bound with long chain hydrocarbons, that the volatility of naphthalene is reduced and that negligible losses actually occur at temperatures of up to 37°C.  It would be interesting to see if any research has been carried out to assess the potential for such losses in ‘real’ soils both during air drying in the laboratory and in the period between sampling and testing when stored in glass verses plastic containers.  However, to minimise uncertainty, it may be best to keep holding times to a minimum and to analyse the as-received sample as soon as possible.

Extraction Solvent

The solvent(s) used to extract hydrocarbons and PAHs varies between laboratories and as each solvent or mix of solvents will have a different extraction efficiency for different compounds, there is the potential for some variation in the TPH or PAH measurement of the same sample between the laboratories.  In 2010 three-quarters of laboratories were using dichloromethane (DCM) as the extraction solvent, with others using DCM/hexane, hexane/acetone or pentane.  The plots below indicate the solvents used today.

Whilst DCM still dominates, far more laboratories are using hexane/acetone than in 2010 and a greater range of other solvents are now used by different laboratories.  If data sets over an extended period are to be compared to study long-term trends, it would therefore be worth checking with the laboratory that the extraction solvent (and test method) has remained constant over the period of monitoring.

But Does it Matter?

To comply with MCerts accreditation, laboratories have to take part in an inter-lab proficiency scheme such as CONTEST.  Under such schemes each laboratory analyses the same sample and is able to compare their result to those achieved by the other laboratories.  The effect of the different solvent extraction efficiencies can therefore be investigated through a study of the proficiency scheme data (however, the effect of sample preparation cannot be investigated as the same spiked, homogenised reference material is supplied to each laboratory).

The solvent and analytical methods are detailed in the CONTEST data, and from Round CN118 it is apparent that there is no clear trend between the solvent used and the results for the three to five ring PAHs.  However, for naphthalene, although there is notable variation between laboratories, those using DCM have generally measured a greater concentration (averaging at 1.08mg/kg) when compared to those using hexane/acetone (averaging at 0.78mg/kg).

This suggests that for naphthalene at least, the solvent used by the laboratory does affect the concentration that is reported, with laboratories using hexane/acetone being likely to report a lower naphthalene concentration than those using DCM.  When combined with the uncertainty regarding the potential loss of naphthalene during drying, it is questioned whether the adoption of a very low threshold value for naphthalene is reasonable.

Conclusion

The potential effect of the variation in sample preparation methods between laboratories remains significant, and whilst no one method is ‘the correct method’, engineers and consultants who are scheduling analyses should be aware of how the laboratory will prepare the sample and what effect that could have upon the results and how they interpret them.

All too often, when a sample that is known to contain fragments of clinker, slag or part burnt coal is found to contain a metal or PAH concentration in excess of a human heath threshold value, the default position is to recommend removal or a capping scheme.  If, however, the results were considered with knowledge of the sample preparation method, a more appropriate analysis could be carried out on a sieved sample that may yield a result that could indicate that remedial measures were, in fact, not necessary.  Such sieved re-testing of samples is not significantly costly or time-consuming, and by gaining a greater understanding of the sample preparation method and the uncertainty associated with the analytical result, a far more sustainable remedial scheme can be considered.  Similarly, before applying low threshold values, the potential variability between laboratories and the magnitude of the uncertainty associated with the analytical method should be considered.

Article provided by Mike Plimmer, Technical Director at Geotechnical & Environmental Associates

 

Article Loss Prevention

AGS Commercial Risks and How to Manage Them Conference 2020 – Overview

- by
Tags: Featured

Following the success of the first AGS Commercial Risks and How to Manage Them Conference in July 2019, the conference was held on 22nd January 2020 at the Manchester Conference Centre. The conference was sponsored by Geotechnics, SOCOTEC UK, Geotechnical Engineering and Envirolab. The afternoon conference was attended by 60 delegates and following lunch and opportunity to network with the sponsors and attendees, Jo Strange (CGL), who was chairing the event gave the opening address.

Russell Jones (Golder Associates) started the afternoon speaking about ‘battle of the forms’, which arises when two businesses are negotiating the terms of a contract and one business provides an offer and then the other business provides a counteroffer. Russell concluded that the battle is usually ‘won’ by the party that fired the last shot!.

Hugh Mallett (BuroHappold Engineering and AGS Loss Prevention Working Group Leader) discussed the importance of defining scope and objectives in proposals and project reports by reference to real life case studies which led to dispute or claims and referred delegates to LPA 69 for further information.

Stephen Hargreaves (Griffiths & Armour) described several case studies based on insurance claims, showing that fundamental errors can equal high value disputes. Stephen advised on an “eyes wide open” policy to manage the risks around making assumptions.

Zita Mansi (Beale & Co) spoke about collateral warranties, emphasising that collateral warranties are new contracts with third parties. Zita informed the delegates the measures available to mitigate risk and the fundamental importance of limiting liability in such agreements.

After refreshments and further networking, Adam Gombocz (NHBC) discussed how NHBC adopt a proactive approach to managing risks on sites registered for Buildmark warranty. Through case studies, Adam explained what is to be avoided on residential developments.

Rachel Griffiths (Fugro) considered the important distinction between the ‘duty of care’ required in providing (a) services or (b) goods.  Goods fall under a ‘fit for purpose’ requirement of the Sale of Goods Act. Whereas provision of services falls under a requirement for ‘reasonable skill and care’ under the Supply of Goods and Services Act. These standards are fundamentally different and consultants giving advice or providing designs should make sure that their contract specifically refers to “reasonable skill and care” and not to “fit for purpose”.  To avoid any misunderstanding Rachel recommended that this clarity should be reiterated in AGS Member’s professional reports.

The final talk of the day was provided by Lee Beveridge (Environment Agency), who discussed the implications for Members of recent changes in Landfill Tax (see AGS Magazine March/ April 2019). Lee advised that the new rules were in effect now but could also date back to activities from 1st April 2018. Lee warned delegates that the HMRC were looking to enforce the new regime with considerable vigour.

The presentations from the conference (with approval from speakers) are now available on the AGS website together with numerous documents and up to date commercial guidance, freely available. The Legal Helpline also offers members 15 mins of free advice from Beale and Co.

News Loss Prevention

AGS LPWG Input to NEC4 Professional Services Contract

- by
Tags: Featured

The Loss Prevention Working Group has been in communication with the NEC4 drafting committee regarding the extent of professional indemnity insurance cover required under the Professional Services Contract.  NEC are to provide additional guidance on how to complete Contract Data for the insurances within the published guidance notes. At present, guidance on this insurance in Volume 2 simply recommends that the advice of an insurance specialist be obtained. NEC now propose to add the following.

When insurance cover is restricted for certain work required under the contract, for example advice in relation to land affected by contamination where an aggregate limit has been imposed, the compiler should include the entry “….. in respect of each claim without limit to the number of claims, but subject to an aggregate limit of …. In respect of claims relating to …”. The same approach should be followed where other restrictions are placed on the cover which Consultants are able to obtain for services under the contract.

This will allow consultants to be covered by their usual policies which usually limit cover relating to contamination to be in the annual aggregate.

Neil Parry, Director at Geotechnical Engineering on behalf of the AGS Loss Prevention Working Group

Article Safety

“Emergency rescue from a trial pit – are you prepared?”

- by
Tags: Featured trial pit

This is the second of a series of articles related to safety and trial pitting, following the June 2019 AGS Magazine article “Is trial pitting fit for purpose?”.

Imagine the situation: you are in a meeting at your office and your phone buzzes – a number you don’t recognise; it buzzes again, and you mute it.  You carry on with your important meeting, when it buzzes with a text “URGENT – accident, call straightaway!”.  You excuse yourself and call the unknown number.  The voice says “I’m the JCB driver at … site; your Engineer has fallen into a trial pit; it’s quite deep and they’re hurt.  What do we do?”, and then says “I’ve called the Fire Brigade, but they’re not here, and the pit sides are looking likely to collapse.  There’s standing water and inflow at the base of the pit, and they might not be able to breathe soon!”

Perhaps reading this you are thinking to yourself that you wouldn’t get a call like that because you always have a 2 person team on site?  Well maybe it’s one of the two calling you and you’ve still got a very difficult problem to address.  Maybe you are thinking you won’t get that call because your company generic and site specific RAMS or Construction Phase Plan includes a detailed Emergency Rescue Plan for such a situation, and your staff have been trained on it, and the field team have been briefed on it, and there is equipment available.  That would be good.  Because you do have generic and site-specific rescue plans don’t you?

The AGS Safety guidance note “Work at Height”, which is based on the HSE document “Working at Height : a brief guide”, states “… this must include planning for emergencies and rescue, without resort to the emergency services in the first instance…”.

           

In Autumn 2019, the AGS Safety Working Group sent out questionnaires to AGS members, asking for their feedback on how they managed Work at Height when carrying out machine dug trial pitting activities, and particularly focused on logging activities close to the unprotected edge of a trial pit circa 2, 3, 4m+ deep.  Whilst a specific question was not asked about rescue plans, not one of the respondents identified rescue plans as a part of their work at height / trial pitting arrangements.   Because a specific “rescue” question was not asked in the questionnaire, it would be premature and unreasonable to deduce that none of the respondents employ rescue plans.   But in collating and interpreting those survey responses, it started to concern me that no-one even mentioned it in their response.

The questionnaire and discussions within the AGS Safety Working Group over the past year, contributed to a paper presented at the AGS “Safety in Mind” conference in November 2019, entitled “How far is SFARP when working at Height during trial pitting”.  Subsequent discussions following the presentation have concerned me that rescue plans for trial pitting, specifically rescuing a logging engineer who has fallen into a trial pit, do not appear to be as widely practiced as I might imagine.

There are all sorts of reasons why we carry out trial pitting, and why we have for many decades undertaken this by standing (for part of the operation at least) close to an unprotected edge of a pit several metres in depth.  A discussion about those aspects is contained within the “Safety in Mind” conference presentation (which is available on the AGS website) and will be the subject of the next article in this series.  There are discussions ongoing within the AGS Safety Working Group about Working at Height and trial pitting, and about new equipment coming into the industry which might be practicable, and which may further prevent a fall into a trial pit.   However, until that becomes available, we should as an industry, and as employers and managers be thinking about rescue.

Rescue from a trial pit is not easy.  You might have an extendable ladder within the boot of your car / van.  But if the fallen person is injured, can they even climb a ladder?  What if you descend the ladder, could you pick them up and carry them back up a ladder?  Perhaps you could attach a rope to them and get the JCB to lift them out?  Do you know how to attach a rope to an injured person, so that it will support them, and not lead to them slipping and being injured further? Perhaps if they were wearing a rescue harness then you could attach the rope to that, but that involves having a rope of sufficient strength available.  Maybe you could wait for the fire brigade, but that presumes they can get there in time, are not dealing with other emergencies, and also that they can easily get to where you are trial pitting, which may not always be easy. And importantly, will they get there before the pit collapses, because if not you are dealing with removal of a body rather than rescue of an injured person.  Maybe you think you could ride down on the JCB bucket and help the person into the bucket and lift them out.   There certainly are products and equipment in the construction and utilities industries which might contribute to implantation of a pre-planned rescue.  However, it is usually about this time in a discussion that someone will raise “Confined Space!”.  Whether any individual trial pit is a confined space is dependent on actual site conditions, but a trial pit is certainly a potential confined space, not least if that groundwater inflow is causing a rise of water at the base of the pit, or if ground gas is present.  And we probably all know the mantra about confined spaces – you don’t send another person in at risk to rescue because then we may have 2 people to rescue.  What a conundrum!  If it’s not easy to you, what kind of challenge does it pose to the JCB driver and your second young graduate engineer on site who are actually faced with it?

So, preparing for emergency rescue isn’t easy.  It might involve equipment you don’t have; you would need to train your staff and brief others; you haven’t implemented it before and are not aware of others who have done so.

Maybe it is easier to just believe because it hasn’t happened to you before, it’s not too urgent.  One thing the questionnaire responses identified, is that during hundreds of years of collective experience, none of the respondents or the author have experienced or known of a single case of a logging engineer / geologist falling into a trial pit.  This is comforting to some extent.  However, a fall into a trial pit would almost certainly lead to major injury, broken bones, back, neck etc. Or worse.  I would suggest that as employers, managers and as an industry, our methods of work should allow human beings to make human mistakes (such as tripping or stumbling close to the edge perhaps) without having their life substantially affected forever as a result.

This article is not intended to be judgmental or critical.  It is intended to raise, for discussion or action, an issue of concern, certainly to me at least.  I have been involved in trial pitting for over 30 years and have derived great personal and project benefit from getting up close to the ground, and from the information that can be uniquely obtained from pits.  I have no interest in “banning” trial pitting.  The synthesis and collation of information on this subject over the past year however has prompted personal thoughts about whether we as an industry and employers are doing enough, particularly to seek other practicable technological solutions which allow us to continue to benefit from trial pitting.

Back to the initial telephone call.  Let’s imagine that the Fire Brigade have got there, and fortunately, before the sides of the pit collapsed.  Your staff member is out of the pit, but on their way to hospital with broken bones at least.  You now have 3 telephone calls to make which will keep you from your important meeting – to your Managing Director, to the HSE/RIDDOR, the outcomes of which will no doubt lead to business loss and potential prosecution, and most importantly to the family of your injured member of staff.

I am sure that some readers will think this is “scaremongering”, and that people don’t fall down trial pits, as long as they are “competent” and follow sensible guidance and the (“perfect”) RAMS.  Are you absolutely sure that you can rely on that; and what about UXO and Archaeology Watching Brief observers who also want to peer into the pit – are you sure?  Do you want to make those telephone calls or speak to the HSE Inspector under caution?

Please have this discussion within your own projects and organisations. Download the AGS “Work at Height” guidance note and read it and disseminate it around your organisation to raise awareness.  The AGS Safety Working Group are having this discussion and are establishing a Trial Pitting Sub-Group.  Please let the AGS know your thoughts, views, experiences and ideas on rescue, particularly if you already implement a proven methodology for such a situation, which would benefit other AGS members from its dissemination.

The time to think about emergency rescue from a trial pit is NOT when you need it – it is long before.  The person who needs to think about it is not your young logging engineer / geologist, but the employer and managers.

Article provided by Steve Everton, Director of Operations at Jacobs

News

AGS Magazine: December 2019 / January 2020

- by
Tags: Featured

The Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists are pleased to announce the December 2019 / January 2020 issue of their publication; AGS Magazine. To view the magazine click here.

This free, publication focuses on geotechnics, engineering geology and geoenvironmental engineering as well as the work and achievements of the AGS.

There are a number of excellent articles in this month’s issue including;
New AGS Members in 2019 – Page 4
AGS Safety in Mind Conference – Review – Page 6
Mindfulness & Meditation – Page 10
Collateral Warranties: Reliance and Limiting Liability – Page 14
Q&A with Neil Parry of Geotechnical Engineering – Page 18
Standards Update: November 2019 – Page 22

Advertising opportunities are available within future issues of the publication. To view rates and opportunities please view our media pack by clicking HERE.

If you have a news story, article, case study or event which you’d like to tell our editorial team about please email ags@ags.org.uk. Articles should act as opinion pieces and not directly advertise a company. Please note that the publication of editorial and advertising content is subject to the discretion of the editorial board.

Article

Q&A with Neil Parry

- by
Tags: Featured

Full Name: Neil Parry
Job Title: Technical Director
Company: Geotechnical Engineering Limited

I’m a chartered Civil Engineer and SiLC with 32 years’ experience working for major contractors and consultants on many different projects including major infrastructure, military, demolition and remediation schemes, latterly in the ground investigation sector. I am a member of the AGS Loss Prevention Working Group, chaired the Contaminated Land Working Group between 2013 and 2017 and was chair of the AGS between 2017 and 2019. I am involved in the working groups revising the specification for ground investigation and developing an NEC type contract for GI work, I am also currently chair of Ground Forum.

What or who inspired you to join the geotechnical industry?

I began my career working as a site engineer with Alfred McAlpine and AE Farr Limited in the late 1980s on construction sites such as the Avon Ring Road and building munitions igloos for the US Airforce. I was based at the offices of Acer Freeman Fox in Bristol, gaining design experience for my Civils chartership when AE Farr went into receivership, a victim of the severe downturn in 1990. Despite being re-employed by Amey Construction I decided that it was best for my young family to leave civil engineering contracting and take up the offer of consultancy work with Acer. I originally worked in bridge design and on water projects, but due to my undergraduate specialism in soil mechanics ended up in the geotechnical engineering team. I enjoyed the mix of site-based and design work and quickly realised that this was what I wanted to do for the rest of my career. I was lucky to work with several knowledgeable and inspiring leaders who encouraged me to progress within the geotechnical industry. When I had the opportunity to study for an MSc in the relatively new subject of environmental geology/geoenvironmental engineering I jumped at the chance and undertook the course on a part-time basis over three years. I really enjoyed learning a new subject and was encouraged by the people I worked with to continue in this sector. I continue to work on both geotechnical and geoenvironmental work.

What does a typical day entail?

As most people will say there are rarely typical days in ground investigation/geotechnical engineering. If we have a major project that is about to start or I am visiting a site for the first time there is often a health and safety induction or briefing. The importance of health, safety and wellbeing is perhaps the most significant advancement in the industry that I have seen in the last 30 years and I am pleased to have seen this progress.

It is likely that I will attend a meeting, either internally, on AGS business or with one of our clients. Despite technical advancements allowing remote interaction I feel that the importance of face to face meetings cannot be overestimated and I believe that personal contact is a significant aid to promoting collaborative working.

I may be involved in reviewing a contract or undertaking technical checks of test results, logs or reports, hopefully providing positive encouragement and advice. I may also be required to design the anchor system for one of our slope climbing rigs prior to it being deployed to a slope anywhere in the UK.

Are there any projects which you’re particularly proud to have been a part of?

I try to take pride in whatever project I’m involved in at the time, whether it is a £20,000 investigation for a housing project or on major GI works costing millions of pounds for a large infrastructure scheme. Some of the projects that come to mind however are working on the feasibility of scheme options for the A465 ‘Heads of the Valleys’ Road, which is currently under construction many years later. I also worked on the geotechnical design and supervised the GI for a £200 million indoor ski centre in Taiwan. I have been involved in several brownfield land schemes such as the gasworks remediation for the Thistle Centre in Scotland and the demolition/remediation works for Bede Island in Leicester. Recently Geotechnical Engineering have undertaken work on several large infrastructure projects, which have been challenging and rewarding.

What are the most challenging aspects of your role?

Like most people working in our industry I have several different roles and responsibilities, both within Geotechnical Engineering and the AGS. I am passionate about promoting the value of technical skills and it is disappointing when these are dismissed or marginalised reducing the benefit of the work we do. Working directly to the requirements of a specification may not produce the best technical value for the project and early contractor involvement greatly helps in improving specifications in respect to the proposed works.
I also find the it challenging to promote the fairness of relationships between parties when entering into contracts. I believe that those taking the risks under a contract should be rewarded for doing so and there is an important balance between assigning risk and responsibility between contractual parties.

What are the aims and objectives of the Ground Forum?

The Ground Forum provides a single point of contact for ground related industries (including the AGS, EGGS, BGA, FPS, BDA and several others) with government and official bodies, giving the geotechnical fraternity a voice within the construction industry. Ground Forum exists to:
• Provide an effective point of communication between Member Organisations.
• Enhance the profile of the ground engineering industry.
• Raise youth awareness of the satisfaction and rewards of a career in ground engineering.
• Promote good practice in all ground related disciplines.
• Enhance training through CPD.
• Promote the value of good ground engineering and geotechnics.
• Lobby the government and other construction organisations on issues of concern for the ground engineering sector.
As the Chair of Ground Forum, what does your role involve?
The chair of Ground Forum provides a coordinating role between the fifteen member organisations. There are three to four committee meetings every year plus attendance at events by the Construction Industry Council and Parliamentary and Scientific Committee. As there are a wide range of different views on the industry between the different bodies represented (for example the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining (IOM3) and the International Geosynthetics Society) it is important to forge a common purpose and develop agreed objectives.

What are the current focuses of the Ground Forum?

Currently Ground Forum is focussed upon:
• Lobbying the Government to ensure infrastructure spending is maintained through to addressing the status of valued European employees and maintaining UK access to skilled operatives and professionals.
• The Impact of Brexit on ground engineering sector.
• Addressing the shortage of Ground Engineering professionals.
• Maintaining Ground Engineers on the Government’s shortage of occupations list.
• Supporting university degrees and specialisms in ground engineering.
• Ensuring the industry maintains its access to expertise and well trained graduates.

Why do you feel the AGS are an integral member of the Ground Forum?

The AGS has quite a diverse membership, representing several different aspects of the ground engineering industry. This is reflected in the different AGS Working Groups, including the proposed Instrumentation and Monitoring group. This helps the AGS to understand the needs across the industry and several AGS members have successfully chaired Ground Forum.
Why do you feel the AGS and the Ground Forum are important to the industry?

There is a need to constantly promote the quality of our ground engineering professionals and the work they do in an industry that is literally “covered up”, so that our work is often unseen. Without bodies such as AGS, Ground Forum and their membership bodies I believe standards would be in danger of slipping with significant repercussions.

What changes would you like to see implemented in the geotechnical industry?

Although maintaining a high skill base is crucial and the possibility of skills shortages could have a major impact, I believe the promotion of health, safety and wellbeing is crucial to the success of the geotechnical industry. We need to look after our young engineers to allow them to develop both technically and in their quality of life.

The output from the recently established joint procurement of ground investigation working groups will hopefully lead to beneficial changes in what can often be the most important part at the start of a scheme. I’m hoping the results of these groups will be beneficial to all of the industry and adopted by client organisations throughout the UK.

Article

Mindfulness & Meditation

- by
Tags: Featured

Applying mindfulness to the workplace has benefits in terms of stress management, improved health and greater focus.

Mindfulness and mental health
Mindfulness is recommended as a treatment for people with mental ill-health as well as those who want to improve their mental health and wellbeing.
There are also different sorts of mindfulness meditation which can help people in different ways. Evidence shows compelling support for Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction (MBSR), which helps people to cope with stress, and for Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT), which is designed to help people with recurring depression. They provide a flexible set of skills to manage mental health and support wellbeing.

The evidence for mindfulness
Mindfulness meditation has been shown to affect how the brain works and even its structure. People undertaking mindfulness training have shown increased activity in the area of the brain associated with positive emotion – the pre-frontal cortex – which is generally less active in people who are depressed.2
Many studies have shown changes in brain wave activity during meditation and researchers have found that areas of the brain linked to emotional regulation are larger in people who have meditated regularly for five years or more.3 The evidence for different types of mindfulness is promising and research has grown in recent years. Source: Mentalhealth.org.uk

What is mindfulness?

Being aware of what is going on inside and outside of yourself, moment by moment.

We frequently live internally, forgetting about the world around us and how our bodies respond to it. We often get wrapped up in our own thoughts, and are unaware of how our thoughts and emotions reflect on our physical body.

Mindfulness puts each of your senses into practice – smells, sounds, sights, tastes, and focuses these senses on the present moment and surroundings.

Mindfulness brings the present moment to the forefront, enabling you to positively change your perception, thoughts and feelings about yourself and your life.

What are the benefits?

Mindfulness enables you to enjoy both yourself and your surroundings. By being more aware of the present moment and the impact this has on you, you can establish a positive thought pattern.

Focusing on your internal dialogue will help you to understand a pattern of thought, enabling you to gradually train yourself to recognise when these become unhelpful and destructive.

Mindfulness gives you the opportunity to step back from your thought pattern and recognise that it doesn’t control you and can be altered in whichever way you wish.

This recognition will enable you to highlight signs of anxiety and stress perhaps before you normally would. Determining these signs more promptly will help you to combat them in their earlier stages.

In short, mindfulness could help you:
• Become more self-aware
• Reduce stress and anxiety
• Feel more in control of your thoughts and feelings
• Establish stronger coping strategies towards unhelpful thoughts and feelings
• To be kinder to yourself

How to practice mindfulness

Become more aware of each of your senses in order to switch off the ‘auto pilot’ thought processes. Pay attention to your thoughts, feelings, body and how you react to the world around you.

Notice the everyday – The sound of your feet hitting the pavement, the feel of your hands on your knife and fork or the shapes of the clouds. Paying attention to the things you encounter everyday will bring a new and brighter perspective on life.

Keep it habitual – Dedicate a certain time to being mindful. Try to keep this uniform each day as becoming mindful takes practice. This could be a bath before bed, or a walk to work for example.

Try something new – We are all creatures of habit, so stepping out from the norm can help to establish a new and fresh perspective. This can be something simple like sitting on a different seat on your commute to work, or running a different route for your jog.

Recognise your thoughts – Some people have a very busy and vocal inner dialogue. This can become intrusive and often go unnoticed. But paying attention to it will enable you to make positive changes. Mindfulness isn’t about quashing your usual thought pattern, but instead questioning it. Are those thoughts useful? Are they causing you harm? Embrace your thoughts, acknowledge them, and try to release them as easily as they arrived. Exercise can often help to quiet a worried and busy mind.

Free yourself from the past and future – The beauty of mindfulness is that it can be practiced anywhere. It can be helpful to acknowledge that you may have been confined by past problems, or occupied by future worries.

Mindfulness Techniques

We have discussed that mindfulness can be practiced within normal daily life, but it can also be helpful to dedicate some time to establish more formal mindful practice in the form of mindful meditation.

The word “meditation” is something you could think of as a big umbrella word. Rather like “sport” it covers a whole host of different styles, activities and methods.

It is something which anyone can do and enjoy when you find a method which suits you.

Things you need, to gain the most benefit from meditation and mindfulness:
1. Focus
2. Relaxation
3. Self-acceptance and patience

1. Focus
• Keep your mind engaged in your meditation
• As soon as you are aware of wandering thoughts bring yourself back to focus
• When a thought crosses your mind in meditation, acknowledge it but don’t start a conversation with it! Let it go now and allow it to come back later or file the thought away for later action
• Allow yourself to just say “I don’t know!” if you start to question yourself
• Tighten and relax each muscle group from top to bottom
• Focus on what you see, hear, smell, taste and feel moment by moment
• Return to focus

2. Relaxation
• Allow yourself to be relaxed when you start to meditate
• Allow the meditation to enhance those feelings
• Close your eyes and place your hands flat on your solar plexus
• Calm on each outbreath
• Imagine breathing in relaxing coloured air – you can also breath out unwanted feelings with a relevant colour to you.

Ask yourself –
• Am I physically comfortable?
• If using music – is the volume right for me?

Also check you are mentally comfortable –
• Do I feel safe?
• Am I comfortable that I won’t be disturbed?
• Have I allowed time? (Set an alarm!)

3. Acceptance and Patience
• Don’t worry about whether you are doing it the “right” way. The way you are doing it is right for you right now!
• Do not try too hard
• Accept that thoughts will enter your mind and distractions will occur and simply return to the meditation each time your mind wanders without giving yourself a hard time
• Practice will make it easier and more effective – the more you do it the better you get
• Return to focus

Helpful Meditation Techniques

Guided Visualisation
• Start by relaxing your body
• Engage all your senses and imagine: sights, sounds, smells, temperature and touch
• Guide yourself through an imaginary journey to a place where you can relax and enjoy feeling safe and calm

Laugh your troubles away
• Make a little cave in your hands
• Put your troubles inside
• Take a peek and laugh them away

Seated meditation
• Be awake, conscious, engaged, calm and relaxed
• Sit upright and be comfortable
• Use your chosen hand position

Breath counting meditation
• Close your eyes and allow yourself to relax
• Start to focus on your breath, then begin to count the out breaths
• If you lose count because you have become distracted, start again
• Do this to start with for up to 50 natural breaths then build it up as you like

When you have practiced you will get a feel for what you enjoy and what works for you, so you can create your own style of meditation.

To provide Mindfulness in your workplace and for further information contact The Healthy Employee Ltd
E: office@thehealthyemployee.co.uk
T: 07778 218009