Association of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Specialists MAY 2011 ISSUE 62

Thank you Matthew and thank you the committee and members of the AGS for granting me the honour of being the next chairman of this vibrant association.

My first task is to thank Matthew Warner for his chairmanship of the AGS during the last two years which have been perhaps the most challenging years for a long time.

Matthew has chaired the organisation through arguably the worst recession since the war. It has impacted on member companies and their staff, restricting what can be achieved yet as an organisation we remain active and vibrant.

This is due to the chairman, the committee and the members who volunteer their time, either independently or as a member of a working group, with the whole operation guided and supported by Dianne, Gemma and all at Forum Court.

Unlike many of the previous chairmen I came to the geotechnical world later than most having spent my early career in general civil engineering, initially as a land drainage engineer then water engineer. I became active in this industry in 1989, becoming manager of a small

organisation called GTS and then Exploration Associates followed by Ian Farmer Associates in 1998.

I have always believed passionately in striving to produce technical excellence but tempered with practicable reality. This is not a statement of compromise but a reflection of the need to be aware of commercial influences in everything we do. I would like to come back to this topic in a moment.

As I mentioned earlier today, in 2003 I volunteered to chair the newly formed Laboratory Working Group. This has been an enjoyable experience, as has my attendance on the committee and other AGS activates. Needless to say I am looking forward to at least another two more enjoyable years.

What is my focus for the next two years?

Without any apology it is to continue the drive established by the AGS to support member organisations through tackling their issues as projected by their representatives. This has and continues to result in AGS technical guidance documents, alerts and reviewing the increasing number of European standards.

We are also encouraging members to lodge issues on our web site as well as through your representatives so that we can continue to determine the key member issues that we need as an association to address.

One issue that is close to my heart is the increasing cost of the pre-qualification and tendering processes in this country especially during what continues to be difficult market conditions.

In our market it is particularly frustrating because we all support and prescribe to third party assessed certification. It has become the norm for organisations to gain certification to ISO 9001, ISO 14001 etc but we are still required to complete complex pre-qualification documentation for many projects and contracts.

The obvious answer would be to consolidate the process into a geotechnical / geo-environmental industry pre-qualification standard. But the major problem is how to achieve it. We would need client support.

To close I would like once again to thank everyone for the honour of being your chairman for the next two years and hope I will be as successful as Mathew and all the previous chairmen.Ken Marsh, Ian Farmer Associates

SafetyNew document on the selection of water pipes P4

continue the drive established by the AGS to support member organisations through tackling their issues

ReportsAGS Working Groups report on progress P8

InsuranceIs there a more realistic appraisal of risk? P2

NEWS

AGS News May 2011 www.ags.org.uk

AGS

New AGS Chairman Ken Marsh outlines his plans for the next two years, with the support for members at its heart

From the Chairman

InsightQuestionnaire findings on AGS format P3

NEW IDEAS FORUM

02 AGS News May 2011

Q&AIn the context of Professional Indemnity (PI) insurance arrangements, the question is best asked “back to front” (i.e. will insurers accept such a request?) to which the answer is, by and large, “no”. The PI market place is an extremely small one and the overwhelming majority of insurers utilise rateable turnover, not chargeable hours. This is a practice which extends back over the decades and where the only divergence from this pricing methodology is on very specific cases.

With this in mind, are there any benefits in attempting to “switch” from a turnover based assessment to one which looks at chargeable hours? From an insured’s perspective, the aim must be to better tailor the premium to the perceived risk. Does changing the basis upon which the premium is arrived at actually achieve this aim?

Arguably not.The argument above assumes insurers simply increase premium in a straight line with increased turnover, which is seldom the case. No doubt, all things being equal, increased activity (therefore increased turnover) would tend to generate higher premiums, but this is not a straight line equation. Other factors

would come in to play, which might see the premium rise disproportionately:• has the nature of the work changed?• does the insured carry out more, or

additional, “higher” risk activities• have the contract values increased?• what is the current state of the PI

market?• with whom is the insured placed (are

they in a scheme, or mutual)?• what extra element of discount can

we give for increased economies of scale?

Depending on the size of the risk being insured, there is also likely to be an element of “premium for the risk” which would simply see insurers

impose a structure which generated the same premium irrespective of which methodology was used.

Which is why insurers collect turnover data and considerably more by way of proposal form/client meetings etc…

All this said, it is perfectly feasible to declare, say, £100k rateable turnover in Year 1 and £125k in Year 2, but pay less PI in Year 2 than in Year 1. Equally, it will have been the experience of many an engineer over the years for the market to harden leading to PI premiums automatically increasing by 100% (plus!) irrespective of what their income is doing.Craig Roberts, Griffiths and Armour

INSURANCE

NEWS

Are there any benefits, in the form of a more realistic appraisal of risks represented, by asking for premiums to be evaluated on chargeable hours rather than turnover? Will insurers in general accept such a request?

Hi I’m Edward Russell, 28 years old and Chairman of the New Ideas Forum of the AGS. I’m a recently Charter Engineering Geologist with Mott MacDonald where I have been practicing in the Geotechnical sector for the last 5 years.

As a group the New Ideas Forum is aiming to improve interaction with students and graduates to promote the services and benefits of the AGS while helping their development within the industry. We are looking at ways of improving communication with universities and using networking sites such as linkedin and facebook as well

as the AGS website to keep people updated on relevant developments and upcoming events. We are also hoping to offer a new perspective to issues being addressed by AGS Working Groups where we may have ‘New Ideas’.

Our group is currently small but diverse with members from large AGS member companies as well as independents. I’d like to appeal to other member companies to encourage their more junior staff to join us and have a say in the AGS and the industry in which they are starting their careers.For more information email gemma@ags.org.uk

increased activity (therefore increased turnover) would tend to generate higher premiums, but this is not a straight line equation

Q&A Summary of the questionnaire on AGS formatQUESTIONNAIRE

At the time of the survey most respondents were using version AGS 3.1. Less than 50% provided the AGS logo on their logs to demonstrate the data was also available in AGS format and about 60% were registered users of AGS format on the AGS website.

www.ags.org.uk 03

In 2010 the AGS together with the British Drilling Association (BDA) undertook a survey of its members and other non member organisations to understand how the industry was currently dealing with the AGS format. The questionnaire also attempted to get an overall understanding of the market for SI contracting and laboratory testing.

Do you have a story you would like covered?Email us at ags@ags.org.uk

60 organisations responded to the questionnaire, 41 were AGS members, 23 were BDA, some were both AGS and BDA members and 14 were neither.

Most respondents 66% were either SI contractors or consultants approx 33% each, the remainder were laboratories or described themselves as other organisations.

For the respondents who used site labour 50% used 85% or more direct labour and plant but 33% used 50% or less.

Most respondents produced reports in electronic and hard copy and the favoured format for electronic copy was pdf.

The AGS format was the favoured format for raw data but Excel and Autocad were also used. Data was generally sometimes or usually provided in one of these formats, only 6 respondents always provided AGS raw data.

GINT and Holebase were the most widely used borehole software packages.

All except one respondent (a non AGS member consultant) were aware of the AGS Format. Most respondents also used GINT or Holebase to produce AGS data.

53 respondents had performed SI contracts with more than 50% having 100 or fewer contracts per year, 33% of respondents had more than 300 projects per year.

50%were aware that AGS would be the default data set in the revised SISG specification.

Approx 66% said that AGS data was sometimes requested in tenders upon which they bid for, 6 said it was always requested and 7 said never.

Most respondents only provided AGS data when it was requested, only 6 provided it for all projects. Most respondents who had produced their data in AGS format would only release it to a third party with their client’s permission and some would require some additional payment. Most respondents could retrieve archived AGS data from recent projects within 3 days and within one week for older projects.

One comment which was regularly given by respondents was that chemical laboratories weren’t producing their results in AGS data format.

For respondents involved with SI contracting more than 50% had an annual turnover less then £1m, with a correspondent income from lab testing of less than £250k. Four respondents had a turnover in excess of £15m in SI. Tony Hodgson, Fugro

SAFETY

04 AGS News May 2011

The UK Water Industry Research (UKWIR) has produced this document to replace the heavily criticised 2002 WRAS

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

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

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

The responsibility for the selection of supply pipes is confused between the Developer, Self Lay Organisation (SLO) and Designer. The responsibility for the production of the crucial Site Assessment Report (SAR) is not clear between the “Developer” or the “Designer” without considering whether they have the necessary contaminated land expertise. Guidance such as the new Eurocodes define competence roles and from an industry perspective it’s yet another

missed opportunity to give some further recognition to the SiLC qualification. It seems to be aimed at the layman but also advocates a very wide ranging and unusual range of laboratory implying the user has a detailed knowledge of soil sampling, preservation and laboratory testing. It is also unfortunate that 30 years after the first edition of BS5930 the document blurs the distinction between site investigation and ground investigation.

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

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

InvestigationWhen looking at investigation the application of photoionization detector (PID) screening is meaningless without further guidance. The “suitable survey

pattern” is not defined and ignores the shortcomings of PID readings. The extent of suggested PID testing could also be onerous in most circumstance.

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

Chemical Analysis One of the most onerous parts of the recommendations is the imposition of a mandatory analytical suite to be undertaken on all samples. Despite the fact that a desk study and ground investigation has been undertaken, including PID screening for VOCs, it appears that there is a limited choice for the user of the document in respect of what testing is required. The suite is far from routine with several determinands not generally carried out by any of the commercial laboratories in the UK

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

www.ags.org.uk 05

Contaminated LandA new document on the selection of water pipes for contaminated land has been produced, but does it address the failings of its predecessor?

SAFETY

06 AGS News May 2011

on soils. To cover the lists as provided would probably cost in excess of £300 per sample. Notably only organic contaminants are considered with the absence of inorganics such as arsenic.

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

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

The simplistic approach to the

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

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

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

Unfortunately some of the chemistry in this part is also misleading. It gives a conversion from EC to resistivity, which is not applicable to soils as it does not

take into account natural moisture content, compaction, voids or the benefit of in-situ measurements. Redox is used as a criteria without proper reference to BS1377 or acknowledging the problems likely to be encountered with disturbed samples.

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

A random list of chemicals is listed under Conductivity, Redox and pH including a vitamin, food preservatives and a range of compounds that would either not be found or could not be determined by routine analyses

Parameter group

Extended VOC suite by purgeand trap or head space and GC-MS with TIC

SVOCs TIC by purge and trap orhead space and GC-MS with TIC (aliphatic and aromatic C5 - C10)

Mineral oil C11-C20

Mineral oil C21-C40

Corrosive (Conductivity, Redoxand pH)

Specific suite identified as relevant following Site Investigation

Ethers

Nitrobenzene

Ketones

Aldehydes

Amines

2a

2b

2c

2d

6

+ Phenols

+ Cresols and chlorinated phenols

+ BTEX + MTBE

1

1a

2

2e

2f

3

4

5

www.ags.org.uk 07

I recently attended a meeting

involving both regulators and

consultants where the tale

was told of a garden that had

apparently been on the point

of Determination by the Local

Authority as Part 2A Contaminated

Land because of the presence of

some fragments of Asbestos Board

in the topsoil when the house

occupier, possibly tiring of the

deliberations, took it upon himself

to go over the soil and pick up

and dispose of the fragments. On

hearing this tale a couple of health

professionals at the meeting

were seen to nearly fall off their

chairs gasping, but at the same

time it was evident that at least

50% of the practitioners present

were in quiet acquiescence with

the pragmatism of the house

occupant. How do you feel?

In the context of current

revisions to the guidance for

Part 2A, there is talk at present of

dangerous driving as an example

of a crime that doesn’t involve SGVs

or GACs, that is to say you can be

driving significantly dangerously

with SPOSH (Significant Possibility

of Significant Harm) at 5mph

or quite safely at 70mph. The

numbers do not matter, but if you

asked an expert what he or she

honestly thought was a safe speed

to be driving, would they have any

option but to throw away your car

keys?

Come along to the AGSCLWG to

discuss these and other issues!

the desk study, analysis, site assessment and pipe selection process covered in the rest of the document. A statement that “barrier pipes should be used for all brownfield sites” would make the whole of this document redundant.

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

Given the potential complexity and cost of the investigation and analysis to fulfil the requirements of the document it is likely that developers and specifiers will often take the simpler approach of always using barrier pipes in brownfield sites when there is any possibility of contamination. This will be the case

in most existing domestic plots and extensions (where the presence of a garage or garden shed would lead to the onerous investigation procedure) and may in turn lead to barrier pipes being unnecessarily specified. It is also possible that the replacement of lead water pipes will be prevented by the higher costs caused by following this guidance.

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

COMMENT BY SLRB

Pipe MaterialAll threshold concentrations are in mg/kg

PE PVC Barrier pipe(PE-Al-PE)

Wrapped Steel

Wrapped Ductile Iron

Copper

Specific suite identified as relevant following Site Investigation

+ Phenols

+ Cresols and chlorinated phenols

+ BTEX + MTBE

PASS

PASS

PASS

PASS

PASS

PASS

PASS

PASS

PASS

PASS

PASS

PASS

PASS

PASS

PASS

PASS

PASS

PASS

PASS

PASS

Corrosive if pH < 7and conductivity

> 400μS/cm

PASS

PASS

PASS

PASS

PASS

PASS

PASS

PASS

PASS

PASS

PASS

PASS

Corrosive if pH < 5 , Ehnot neutral and

conductivity > 400μS/cm

PASS

PASS

PASS

PASS

PASS

PASS

PASS

PASS

PASS

PASS

PASS

PASS

Corrosive ifpH < 5 or > 8

and Eh positive

PASS

PASS

PASS

PASS

PASS

0.125

0.03

1.4

0.4

0.04

PASS

PASS

PASS

1

0.4

0.02

0.02

PASS

0.5

0.1

2

2

2

10

50

PASS

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

FAIL

08 AGS News May 2011

AGS Safety Working Group Report

Underground ServicesA Good Practice Statement for Clients and Designers has been drafted by the Safety WG and published on the AGS website. The document aims to highlight the importance of service location and set out protocol for designers.

Understanding BandingsA document had been drafted and published to the AGS website to explain some of the mystery behind the comprehensive BDA Guidance within SISG Part 4. The document includes guidance on how to avoid every site being a ‘Red’ site, the need for a desk study and risk assessments.

Other AGS Safety GuidanceGuidance documents on Risk Assessment, Trial Pitting, Rotary Rigs and Cable Percussion Rigs can all be downloaded from the AGS website. Work on future guidance documents include Training for new Engineers and Graduates, Working Alongside Roads and the possible revision of HSG 47.

Greg Southgate would be stepping down from his role of AGS Safety Working Group Chairman and would be superseded by Julian Lovell.

REPORTS

Working Group ReportsThere are a number of different working groups within the AGS, all charged with helping members across different areas. Each Group presented their report at the recent Members’ Day, providing an insight into developments in their respective areas.

AGS Contaminated Land Working Group Report

The aim of the WG is to provide • An authoritative voice on issues of land contamination• A forum for exchange of information and experience • An influence for the development of good regulation • A promoter of good practice and high professional standards • A specialist understanding of the interaction between

geotechnical and environmental matters in the assessment of land.

The WG holds four group meetings each year which are regularly attended by the Environment Agency, NHBC and Local Authorities.

Presentations were given by • SAGTA, CL:AIRE, CIRIA in the last year. • AGS CLWG has many links with government including CLG /

DEFRA National Brownfield Forum, HPA Contaminated Land Risk Assessment Forum and the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee of the Environmental KTN

Consultations• DEFRA- Environmental Permitting Guidance for Water Discharge

Activities• DEFRA- Guidance on the Legal Definition of Waste and its

Application:• CL:AIRE- Revised Industry Code of Practice for the Definition of

Waste• DEFRA- Stage Two: Consultation on the transposition of the revised

Waste Framework Directive (Directive 2008/98/EC) in England and Wales:

• DEFRA- Revision of Part 2a Statutory Guidance • BSI- BS 10175: Investigation of Contaminated Land

UKWIRIn 2008 The AGS drafted a Position Paper on WRAS/UKWIR guidance document ‘The Selection of Water Supply Pipes to be used in Brownfield Sites’. In 2009 AGS lobbied UKWIR to offer assistance on the production of peer-reviewed industry guidance however the assistance was declined. In 2010 new UKWIR guidance was produced without any apparent consultation. New UKWIR guidance was produced in 2011 however it was widely criticised and rejected. It has since been suggested that a new CIRIA guidance project with possible AGS input focussing on plastics in the ground could take place in 2012.

www.ags.org.uk 09

Working Group Reports

AGS Loss Prevention Working Group Report

The Loss Prevention WG’s objective is to minimise member’s business risk exposure and help maintain profitability by providing procedural support and good practice guidance. This is achieved through:

• News letter articles• Loss Prevention Alerts• Client Guides• Tool Kit papers• Published documents• Legal Helpline• Chemical Helpline

Newsletter ArticlesThe Importance of Keeping Good Written Records Article by Craig Roberts, July Newsletter: describes how good accurate records can be critical in defence of a case of negligence.

Retention of documents – how long is long enough? Article by Craig Roberts, July Newsletter: gives general considerations relating to professional appointment documents

LPWG Report, July NewsletterInsurance Claims Refusals Article by Tim White, December

Newsletter: evidence that refusals are increasing on the basis of poor site security including locks not conforming to policy.

Published Loss Prevention Alerts• LPA 43 - Construction Industry Scheme: Issues to be considered

by Consultants - provides guidance to consultants on how the CIS operates, and how in particular circumstances consultants could fall within the remit of the scheme.

• LPA 44 - Notifying Insurers - describes the obligation to notify insurers of claims, the hazards of late and premature notification and the aggregation of several claims relating to the same subject matter.

• LPA 45 - Assignment of Reports - considers what liabilities can arise, and how to protect ones position, where the author of a report for a client is later to asked to assign the benefit of his report to a third party.

• LPA 46 - Corby Borough Council Group Litigation- Lessons for Professionals - identifies some lessons to be learnt by AGS members from the group litigation against Corby Borough Council regarding remediation works undertaken at Corby Steelworks between 1985 and 1999.

Toolkit PapersConsultants Undertaking Ground Investigation Contracting – the purpose is to raise the awareness of the risks to a consultant when undertaking ground investigation contracting either himself or by employing a contractor to work for him.

Risk Issues for Independent Geoprofessionals - describes the particular issues experienced by independent Geoprofessionals in setting up and running their own business (to be published shortly)

Liabilities arising from Checking or Reviewing Third Party Designs and/or Information – a short paper which discusses the importance of understanding the details of the appointment and gives examples of scenarios where professional liability may arise in respect of designs undertaken by a third party (to be published shortly)

All publications (with the exception of Tool Kits) can be downloaded for free from the AGS website. www.ags.org.uk/publications

10 AGS News May 2011

REPORTS

Data Management Working Group Report

AGS4 was launched on 25th May 2010 at the National Motorcycle Museum in Birmingham. Following the launch the Working Group had been working on comments received from developers and users implementing the format over next six months. A final update was released on 6th March 2011 and is available on the AGS website along with some guidance documents.

BSI proposal for a “Standard for the Management of Ground Information” in production

The briefThis standard gives a set of recommendations for the management of geotechnical and geoenvironmental data throughout the life cycle of ground engineering projects. It defines data as a concept and provides recommendations on the collection, verification, manipulation, distribution, presentation and storage of data. It includes contractual requirements; the implications of public access regulations; and the ownership of data as it travels along the supply chain. It applies to all aspects of ground engineering including ground investigation; environmental investigation; construction; piling; tunnelling and asset management. It provides some explanations on the role of software, databases and electronic data transfer formats. BS 526/3 have approved the creation of a Standard for the Management of Ground Data.

The standard will be drafted to describe what needs to be done but not how to do it, calling on the present best practices in the industry. The standard will be aimed at ‘Project managers’ to ensure involvement in the whole life cycle of the project.

Document already in progress, though no exact timescales have been set.

LaboratoriesWorking Group Report

AGS Laboratories Help Desk: A new Laboratories help desk was launched to Members via the AGS Newsletter and will be published on the website. The aim of the help desk is to indentify individual or common laboratory issues from AGS Members and to focus the items for considerations for the working group.

ISO/TS 17892:2004 Laboratory Testing of SoilCEN/TC WG 6 had been established to review and redraft Standards 17892 parts 1-12. A UK Convener had been appointed as well as a UK Technical Editor. The working group had made steady progress and four parts were close to completion, four parts well underway and the remaining four would be considered in due course.

The revised Standards will be submitted to TC341 during 2011.

Other Activities• Contribution to the Data Management software AGS 4.0• Contribution to the revision of BS 10175: Investigation of Potentially

Contaminated Sites • Annual meeting with UKAS • Representing AGS on Highway Agency Sector Scheme for Land

Drilling in Ground Investigation

LATA NVQ The Laboratories WG have been working with Equipe on an AGS supported scheme that is in place to provide vocational training to NVQ level 2 and beyond.

Due to the impact of the market downturn there has been little uptake but this will change sometime in the future.

AGS Sampling GuidanceA Quick Start Guide to Contaminated Land Investigation is being drafted to sit alongside the published AGS Guide to Environmental Sampling. The documents have been drafted by a working group formed of Members from the Contaminated land and Laboratories Working Groups.

The final draft of the document has been issued for peer review and it is anticipated the document will be published late summer of this year.

Ken Marsh has stepped down as the Chairman of the Laboratories Working Group and he will be superseded by Peter Keeton.

ADVERTORIAL

T hose of you who have been members of the AGS for a short time will probably know

Roger Chandler from Keynetix, and may be aware of how passionate he is about geotechnical data.

Roger joined the AGS data management committee 15 years ago when he worked for an offshore engineering company in Bath. His motivation for joining the committee at that time was to improve the efficiency with which the offshore industry and the company he worked for reported their CPT and Lab results to their client. Since then he has co-founded Keynetix and has spent the last 13 years helping companies to improve their geotechnical data management.

Over the last six months Roger has been conducting a free data review service to help companies streamline their data creation and transfer. His findings during these reviews have been surprising, especially given the economic climate.

“Even companies that can produce AGS data for their clients are wasting large amounts of money in the way they manage their data processes” says Roger Chandler. “Showing senior management

how they can save thousands of pounds on their next project and then helping to implement the improvements has been a very rewarding experience”

Below are the top 5 most expensive problems that Roger has seen over the last six months:

1. Consultants drawing sections by hand or retyping data into Excel – even though they have AGS data supplied to them.

2. Geotechnical laboratories using up significant man hours retyping or cutting and pasting to produce the client’s lab report.

3. Many contractors neglecting to automate the way they communicate with their geotechnical and chemical laboratories.

4. Procedures that require sample data to be retyped more than 4 times by a single company!

5. Onsite data recording that no one (including the person who wrote it) could read.

The data review meetings are free to all AGS members until the end of June. If some of the above sounds familiar or you would like a free

2 hour confidential review of where your company could save money on your next project seewww.keynetix.com/agsreview for information.

Free review for all AGS members

www.ags.org.ukWhilst every care is taken in the preparation of this newsletter, the AGS and the publisher cannot be held responsible for the accuracy of the information herein, or any consequences arising from it. Zed Publishing accepts no responsibility for the views expressed in the magazine.