AGS Magazine June / July 2021 by AGS Magazine

June / July 2021

INCORPORATING DRONE TECHNOLOGY Remediation contractors Cognition Land and Water provide details on how drone technology is revolutionising the way they survey

AGS YELLOW BOOK PHOTOGRAPHY WINNER

PFAS – THE GREATEST CHALLENGE?

ASBESTOS IN SOIL RISK ASSESSMENTS

The winner and runners up for the Yellow Book photo content are revealed

Geraint Williams of ALS discusses the problem of “Forever chemicals”

SoBRA discuss the way forward for quantitative asbestos risk assessments

ABOUT THE AGS

Chair’s Foreword This is my first magazine Foreword as AGS Chair and I am very much looking forward to my term in this role. I wish to express a huge thank you to my predecessor Julian Lovell for all of his hard work during his term as Chair (and onwards!) as I hope to continue the great work carried out by those who have held the post before me. I also welcome Vivien Dent as the new ChairElect, following on from her hard work as Leader of the Contaminated Land Working Group. Despite the industry uncertainties imposed as a result of the pandemic, our members have shown a great deal of resilience and have adapted to new ways of working and the AGS has been committed to issue guidance to support this shift. However, I am delighted to announce a return to face-to-face events and the AGS Annual Conference 2021 will be a live event. I hope that you can attend on 22nd September in Birmingham. This timing is a shift from the former April slot and will be separate from the AGM this year as this was held remotely in May. If, like me, you are keen to return to mixing with your industry colleagues in person, rather than behind a screen, this will be a very welcome development! We have sponsorship opportunities available for the 2

Magazine

conference so if of interest to your company, please get in touch. We will continue to host online seminars too, as these benefit our members who would not otherwise be able to travel to attend and have meant that the AGS has widened its audience. The most recent of these was the Laboratory Assessment and Sampling Practice webinar, which had a very good turn-out and three interesting speakers, so thanks go to all involved. Our busy Working Groups continue to meet remotely and you will hear more from them in this and subsequent magazines. This month’s magazine highlights innovations in the field of surveying by employing drones and we have articles focussing on the challenges and risks of PFA’s and asbestos in the ground, and also on the digital tools at our disposal in the ground engineering field. We are also very pleased to announce the results of the competition for the front cover photograph of the ‘Yellow Book’, so congratulations to the winner and runners up!

The Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists (AGS) is a non-profit making trade association established to improve the profile and quality of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering. The membership comprises UK organisations and individuals having a common interest in the business of ground investigation, geotechnics, geoenvironmental engineering, engineering geology, geochemistry, hydrogeology, and other related disciplines.

EDITORIAL BOARD Sally Hudson, AGS Chair Caroline Kratz, Forum Court Associates (FCA) Katie Kennedy, FCA Calum Spires, Equipe Group Neil Parry, GEL David Entwisle, BGS Jim Poole, Coffey Chris Vincett, Hydrock Lauren Hunt, Arcadis Adam Latimer, Ian Farmer Associates Dimitris Xirouchakis, Structural Soils Emma Anderson, HaskoningDHV UK Jonathan Gammon, Geotechnical Observations EDITORIAL STORY If you have a news story or event which you’d like to tell our editorial team about, please contact the AGS on 020 8658 8212 or ags@ags.org.uk. Please note that articles should act as opinion pieces and not directly advertise a company. The AGS is under no obligation to feature articles or events received. CONTACT US AGS Forum Court, Office 205 Devonshire House Business Centre, 29-31 Elmfield Road Bromley, Kent, BR1 1LT  ags@ags.org.uk

Sally Hudson AGS Chair

 020 8658 8212  Association of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Specialists  @agsgeotech www.ags.org.uk

Inside this month’s issue

FEATURE PAGE 14



Digital transformation in ground engineering – hopes and fears?

COVER STORY PAGE 18  Remediation contractors provide details drone technology and how they use it to complete surveys

Digital transformation is a term that, within the ground engineering sector, can engender feelings of hope or fear or possibly both at the same time. The hope is for a future where we have tools that can help us all to do a better job for society’s benefit. Neil Chadwick of Digital Geotechnical and Stephen Lawrence West of Ramboll discuss.

YELLOW BOOK PHOTO CONTEST WINNER PAGE 8  We reveal the winner and runners up from the recent AGS Yellow Book photography competition.

PFAS – THE GREATEST CHALLENGE? PAGE 23  Geraint Williams of ALS discusses the problem of “Forever chemicals”.

ASBESTOS IN SOIL AND QUANTITATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT PAGE 32  A discussion on the way forward.

MORE INSIDE

PAGE 6



News in Short: New Asbestos Guidance

PAGE 11



AGS Awards This year’s winners

PAGE 38 

Working Group Update Safety

June / July 2021

News in Short AGS Annual Conference – Registration Open Date: Wednesday 22nd September Time: 9am - 4pm Location: The National Motorcycle Museum, Coventry Road, Bickenhill, Solihull B92 0EJ

Registration is now open for the AGS Annual Conference. This full day event is taking place on Wednesday 22nd September at the National Motorcycle Museum in Birmingham. We have a limited number of complimentary tickets available for AGS Member companies (T&C apply).

Additional tickets cost £60 for Members and £120 for nonMembers (prices ex. VAT). A full speaker programme will be released in due course. To register for this live event please complete a registration form (which can be downloaded HERE) and return it to ags@ags.org.uk before Friday 10th September.

The top three AGS publications in the last month 1. Assessment and Control of Asbestos Risk in Soil – Part 1: Protection of Personnel working on Ground Investigations 2. AGS Guidance on Waste Classification for Soils – A Practitioners Guide 3. Assessment and Control of Asbestos Risk in Soil – Part 2: Protection of Personnel working in Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Laboratories To download the publications for free; click here.

Important dates for the next SiLC exam round Visit the SiLC website or contact SiLC@SiLC.org.uk to find out more about applying to become a SiLC SQP. Becoming a SiLC/SQP | Specialist in Land Condition Register Ltd (SiLC) Deadline for Applications: Wednesday 1st September 2021 Written test: Monday 13th September 2021 – Monday 11th October 2021 Interviews: Monday 22nd November 2021 – Monday 6th December 2021 Results: w/c Monday 10th January 2022

Magazine

AGS Annual Conference Sponsorship Opportunities We’re delighted to announce that the AGS Annual Conference will be back this year on Wednesday 22nd September at the National Motorcycle Museum in Birmingham. This will be a full day event, and we have some great sponsorship opportunities available for both Members and non-Members of the AGS.

Emerald (AGS Member Rate: £950/ NonMember Rate: £1200)

•

Company logo on the event PowerPoint presentation holding slide

•

Company logo and overview on the event programme

•

Company overview on the AGS website

•

Announcement of your company’s involvement on the AGS Twitter page (over 3,000 followers)

•

Announcement of your company’s involvement on the AGS’ LinkedIn page (over 4,800 followers)

*Limited packages available

Silver (AGS Member Rate: £500 NonMember Rate: £650) •

Entry for one delegate into the event

•

Entry for three delegates into the event

•

¼ page advert in AGS magazine (worth £160)

•

A designated area to exhibit company initiatives, research and software. This exhibition space can also showcase marketing materials, literature and banners

•

Company logo on event PowerPoint Presentation holding slide

•

Company logo on the event programme

½ page advert in AGS magazine (worth £250, over 5,400 subscribers)

•

Company overview on the AGS website

•

Announcement of your company’s involvement on the AGS Twitter page (over 3,000 followers)

•

Announcement of your company’s involvement on the AGS’ LinkedIn page (over 4,800 followers)

• •

Company logo on the event PowerPoint presentation holding slide

•

Company logo and overview on the event programme

•

Company overview on the AGS website

•

Announcement of your company’s involvement on the AGS Twitter page

•

Announcement of your company’s involvement on the AGS’ LinkedIn page

*Limited packages available

Gold (AGS Member Rate: £750 / NonMember Rate: £1000) •

Entry for two delegates into the event

•

A designated area to exhibit company initiatives, research and software. This exhibition space can also showcase marketing materials, literature and banners

All prices exclude VAT. Unlimited silver sponsorship packages available. Sponsorship packages are selling out fast! If you’d like to confirm your support please contact Caroline Kratz on ags@ags.org.uk. Please note that packages are limited and are available on a first come, first served basis. Please note that all prices exclude VAT. Unlimited silver sponsorship packages available.

June / July 2021

New AGS guidance published on Assessment and Control of Asbestos Risk in Soil AGS guidance on Assessment and Control of Asbestos Risk in Soil has been published. This guidance is split into two parts. Assessment and Control of Asbestos Risk in Soil - Part 1 provides information on the assessment and control of asbestos in soil for the protection of personnel working on ground investigations. Part 1 can be downloaded here: https://bit.ly/3v1RB2s Assessment and Control of Asbestos Risk in Soil – Part 2 provides information for the protection of personnel working in laboratories associated with testing samples obtained from those investigations. Part 2 can be downloaded here: https://bit.ly/3v5eO3U This aim of this guidance is to assist employers in their duty to protect personnel undertaking ground investigations against exposure to asbestos. This guidance has been produced by representatives of the AGS Contaminated Land, Safety and Laboratories Working Groups in collaboration with the Joint Industry Working Group on Asbestos in Soil and C&D Materials. Representatives from industry, the HSE and Regulators were also invited to view the draft version of this Guidance; their comments and steer are very much appreciated by the AGS and JIWG.

Magazine

Breaking Ground: Geothermal Energy The second episode of Breaking Ground, the new podcast from the Ground Forum and Ground Engineering Magazine, is now available for free download. In this edition, Steve Hadley (Chair of the Federation of Piling Specialists and MD at Central Piling) welcomes Bean Beanland and Michael Chendorain to discuss geothermal energy in the UK, reviewing how it has been used throughout history, what is happening now and how the geothermal energy landscape could look in the future. Breaking Ground is available for free download on channels including Spotify, Apple Podcasts and Google Podcasts. To listen to the podcast, click here: https://audioboom.com/ posts/7872703-breaking-ground-michaelchendorain-bean-beanland The Ground Forum is an umbrella trade association made up of 13 industry bodies with an overall aim to provide focus for

the UK ground engineering industry by effective communication between member organisations, enhancing their profiles, promoting awareness at a governmental and national level, and taking the lead on common interests. To further information on the podcast or for podcast sponsorship opportunities please email gforum@ground-forum.org.uk

Urbanisation: Infrastructure for Growing Cities Podcast AGS Instrumentation and Monitoring Working Group Leader, Jonathan Gammon, recently took part in Fugro’s #99 podcast on Urbanisation: Infrastructure for Growing Cities. Jonathan (also a NonExecutive Director

Geotechnical Observations Limited) sat alongside other guests including Dr Rod Eddies, Global Director Land Geophysics (Fugro), Orhan Şimşek, Country Manager Turkey (Fugro) and Pawel Michalak, Global Director Innovation (Fugro), where they collectively explored

why understanding the composition of the ground is vital for safe infrastructure and how geophysical data can help. To listen to the podcast in its entirety, please click on HERE.

June / July 2021

News in Short AGS Yellow Book Photography Competition – The Results In November 2020, the AGS launched their second photography competition, this time to source a suitable cover for the third edition of the UK Specification for Ground Investigation (Yellow Book) which is due to be published in early 2022.

to announce that Mark Lindahl of Bridgeway Consulting was the overall winner of the competition and won a luxury Fortnum and Mason Hamper. Our three runners up, who each won a bottle of Champagne are Bryan Laycock (Dunelm Geotechnical & Environmental Ltd), Jim Shields (BAM Ritchies) and Jon Ohashi (Soils Limited).

A staggering 83 entries were submitted, each covering a range of topics across the geotechnical and geoenvironmental sector including site work, teamwork, landscape imagery and machinery shots. AGS Chair, Sally Hudson, AGS Past-Chair, Julian Lovell and AGS Instrumentation and Monitoring Leader, Jonathan Gammon took on the challenging task to judge the images by scoring across four criteria; •

Originality and Relevance

•

Composition

WINNING IMAGE

•

Colour, Lighting, Exposure and Focus

Mark Lindahl, Bridgeway Consulting

•

Overall Impression, Impact and Visual Appeal

•

Suitability for Yellow Book

Image description: Rotary percussive drilling to inform the design for new lift shafts under the access for all scheme on behalf of Network Rail Design Delivery Group. 20m borehole with SPT’s and Ut100 sampling

Four images were shortlisted, and we’re pleased 8

Magazine

FIRST RUNNER UP Bryan Laycock, Dunelm Geotechnical & Environmental Ltd Image description: The photo was taken on a job in Co. Durham drilling a 150m deep borehole look at the feasibility for a mine water heat project. The borehole was sank using 4 strings of casing aiming for a roadway within a coal seam at approx. 158mbgl.

THIRD RUNNER UP Jon Ohashi, Soils Limited Image description: This was taken using a 360 camera. The image was taken in the following weeks after Rob Ainsworth sadly passed away, I was pretty close with that guy and was fortunate to be able to call him my friend, not just a brilliant boss! He always pushed for me to take photos not only for work but because he really liked them (I hope!) and he thought I had an eye for it.

SECOND RUNNER UP Jim Shields, BAM Ritchies Image description: rotary coring setups for main ground investigation for Viking Wind Farm in Shetland Mainland. Coring using T2101 water flush. Water being supplied to the drilling location by helicopter.

The AGS would like to thank all those who took the time to enter the competition. The overall standard of entries was extremely high, and the judging panel found the task challenging in shortlisting the top four entries.

June / July 2021

News in Short UK Specification for Ground Investigation – revision update The UK Specification for Ground Investigation, published by ICE Publishing, is currently undergoing a revision. The revised Third Edition has been produced by a working group led by the Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists (AGS) with the support of major clients such as Highways England and Network Rail and other industry bodies such as the British Geotechnical Association (BGA), British Drilling Association (BDA) and Federation of Piling Specialists (FPS). The Third Edition will bring the document up to date, ensuring consistency with all current good practice, relevant standards, and codes of practice. The new edition of the Specification has been expanded to include various new investigation techniques and practices that have been developed and entered routine use since the Second Edition was published in 2011. A draft version for public comment has been released, with comments from industry to be returned by Friday 30th July 2021. All members of the industry are encouraged to review the draft and return any comments they have, and to help spread awareness of the draft amongst colleagues, to ensure

Magazine

this new edition will best serve the industry for years to come. The draft document and commenting template are available from the AGS website using the following link: https:// www.ags.org.uk/2021/06/yellow-bookdraft-for-public-comment It is anticipated that the Third Edition UK Specification for Ground Investigation will be published in the first quarter of 2022.

AGS Awards 2021 This year’s AGS Awards took place virtually during the Annual General Meeting on Tuesday 11th May 2021. A select number of AGS Working Group Members, who were nominated by their Working Group Leaders, were awarded to thank them for their contribution and dedication to the AGS over the past year.

Loss Prevention •

Rachel Griffiths (Award)

•

Russell Jones (Award)

Instrumentation and Monitoring •

Philip Child (Award)

Safety • •

Julian Lovell (Commendation)

Data Management Working Group

•

Jackie Bland (Award)

•

Simon Miles (Award)

Madeleine Bardsley (Commendation)

•

Mark Bevan (Award)

•

Leon Warrington (Award)

•

Tony Daly (Award)

•

Paul Chaplin (Award)

•

Romain Arnould (Award)

•

Joshua Bradley (Award)

•

Steve Walthall (Award)

•

David Farmer (Award)

•

Jerome Chamfray (Award)

•

Craig Brown (Award)

•

Ian Linton (Award)

•

Phil Wade (Award)

•

Philip Child (Award)

•

Peter Hepton (Award)

•

David Entwisle (Award)

•

Roger Chandler (Award)

•

Edd Lewis (Award)

•

Neil Chadwick (Award)

•

Len Threadgold (Award)

Contaminated Land •

Mike Smith (Commendation)

Services to the Association •

Jim Cook (Award)

June / July 2021

AG S W E BI NAR

NEWS & UPCOMING EVENTS

Ground Risk: Landslide Risk Reduction Webinar Summary On 29th April 2021, the AGS held their first webinar on the subject of ground risk, focusing on landslide risk reduction. The event was sponsored by RST Instruments, Geotechnical Engineering and Structural Soils. This webinar featured Professor Mike Winter, (Director at Winter Associates Limited), Ian Nettleton, (Technical Director at Coffey Geotechnics Limited, A Tetra Tech Company) and Dr Andrew Ridley, (Managing Director at Geotechnical Observations Limited), who discussed ground risks associated with slope instability. The event touched on risk assessment of landslide hazards, and the practical features to

look for in the field. The speakers also provided insights into the instrumentation and monitoring of slope movements. This paid for event was rated 4.5 stars out of 5, by our 125 registered delegates who attended from countries across the globe including Canada, Spain, Norway, and Romania. If you missed this webinar, the replay is now live and available for view on the AGS website. The webinar costs £25 for AGS Members and £30 for non-Members (prices exclude VAT). Click HERE to view the replay and download the speaker presentations and file handouts.

2021 AGS Webinar and Live Events Programme Annual Conference (live event)

Net Zero Carbon (webinar)

•

Date: Wednesday 22nd September

•

Date: Wednesday 6th October

•

Time: 9am – 4pm

•

Time: 11am – 1pm

•

Price: A limited number of complimentary tickets available for AGS Member companies (T&C apply). Additional tickets cost £60 for Members and £120 for non-Members (prices ex. VAT).

•

Speakers: TBC

•

Cost: Free of Charge

•

Sponsorship: Diamond and Gold packages available

•

Location: National Motorcycle Museum, Birmingham

•

Sponsorship: Emerald, Gold and Silver packages available

Magazine

Webinar Sponsorship Packages The AGS have Diamond and Gold sponsorship packages available for each of our webinars. They offer an affordable way to reach a worldwide audience via our various platforms including AGS Magazine, our ever-growing database, social media channels and of course, during the webinar itself, which will be available on the AGS website post-event for ongoing company exposure.

DIAMOND SPONSOR

GOLD SPONSOR

*one package available per webinar

*10 packages available per webinar

Price: £800 (members) or £1,100 (nonmembers)

Price: £350 (members) or £650 (nonmembers)

•

Logo on sponsor slide during the webinar (and webinar recording)

•

Logo and overview in the event program

•

Company mention during webinar opening & closing address

Company website link or pop-up promotion to feature during the live webinar

•

Large logo on sponsor slide during the webinar (and webinar recording)

•

Company mention during webinar opening • & closing address

•

Logo and overview in the event program

•

Company Q&A feature in AGS Magazine (5,440 subscribers)

• • • •

Full page advert in AGS Magazine (worth £400) Two complementary event registrations (worth up to £180) Company logo and overview featured on the webinar registration page Logo featured on promotional marketing emails

•

Company logo and overview on the AGS’ Twitter page (3,073 followers)

•

Company logo and overview on the AGS’ LinkedIn page (5,129 followers)

•

Company logo featured on replay email campaigns

•

Company mention in a follow up article in AGS Magazine (5,440 subscribers)

Logo featured in promotional marketing emails

•

Company directory insert in AGS Magazine, worth £50 (5,440 subscribers)

•

One complementary webinar registration (worth up to £90)

•

Company logo and overview on the AGS’ Twitter page (3,073 followers)

•

Company logo and overview on the AGS’ LinkedIn page (5,129 followers)

•

Company mention in a follow up article in AGS Magazine (5,440 subscribers)

•

Company overview on the AGS website

•

Company logo featured on replay email campaigns

If your company would like to support any AGS webinars or if you’d like any further information on the events, please contact Caroline Kratz on ags@ags.org.uk.

June / July 2021

Digital transformation in ground engineering – hopes and fears? Article contributed by Neil Chadwick, Director, Digital Geotechnical and Stephen Lawrence West, Director, Ground Engineering, Ramboll

It starts with the data The digital revolution is also a data revolution. The good news is that our industry is already pretty good at handling data. At the heart of this is our own AGS data transfer format for factual GI data. We take it for granted but it is probably the world’s most successful ground data transfer format. Other countries, and other parts of the construction industry, look at us with envy.

igital transformation is a term that, within the ground engineering sector, can engender feelings of hope or fear or possibly both at the same time. The hope is for a future Despite this success we We take it for where we have tools that should not rest on our can help us all to do a better granted but it is laurels – and we are not. job for society’s benefit. The probably the world’s The AGS format is adapting fear is of being left behind, most successful ground and expanding. We have individually or corporately, introduced AGSi, for ground data transfer format. or concern about potential models and interpreted data, undesirable consequences if we and a draft for AGS piling is allow the machines to take over. In now starting to gather some real interest. The this article we will explore some of these fears, AGS Instrumentation and Monitoring Working a few of which are well founded, but our main Group is also on the case, currently studying goal is to accentuate the positives that digital real world I&M data flows. transformation can bring and encourage creative thought and debate about this issue Few would doubt the value of digital tools for by the AGS members. helping us to sort out the data, or the need

“

Magazine

for common standards for when we need share that data. The opportunity that digital transformation provides is a step change improvement on what we already have Our day to day experience of modern apps and websites has, quite rightly, increased expectations for the user experience of technical software. We want tools that are both smarter and easier to use. However, if we want our software vendors to provide these, then we need to be pro-active in telling them what we really need, and why.

Interpretation: humans vs machines? Interpretation of data to inform design is perhaps the first flashpoint in the discussion about the nature and extent of machine input to our processes. We all know and accept that ground data is normally less than perfect, with outliers that are outliers for a good reason, albeit we don’t always know the reason at the time. In this country we have been reluctant to use even relatively straightforward statistical methods in our interpretation, so therefore it comes as no surprise to find that many get nervous when the digital evangelists start talking about data driven design and machine learning. It is right that we should question these. Data driven design is just that. In many cases, a data driven design could give us the right answer, but data is subject to imperfections, bias and limitations. If we are not careful we may end up reinforcing the bias (as Amazon once found out, to their embarrassment), or we could get things completely wrong if we extrapolate outside the valid range of the data. We also need to ask what is the ‘right answer’ when considering design solutions. Can a purely data led design provide an answer that is right for the overall needs of a particular client and project that suitably weighs risk. This is where the human element can provide insight to select the right answer having been guided by information provided from past data.

Machine learning goes further and can potentially unlock more value from our data, but the mantra here is ‘don’t forget the physics’. The realities of the ground are such that the machines will always need a human partner for their learning process, whose role will be to define the geological and other rules that should be obeyed, and act as final arbiter to select the design ground model. An example of the above is interpretation of geological horizons from borehole data. We already use computers to help us with this, but at present it typically needs need human intervention to account for features such as buried river channels that may be apparent from the desk study conceptual model but may be have been missed by the existing boreholes. Having said all that, the authors believe that we should be embracing these techniques, using them to help us make more informed and hopefully better decisions. The fact that 100 different engineers can come up with 100 different design lines from the same data is not something we should be proud of.

A good example of a positive experience from machine learning was given at the AGS Data Conference in 2017. One of the presentations looked at the machine learning applied to CPT interpretation for a large regional scale dataset. Human verification of selected interpretation was undertaken for control purposes. It was confirmed that some of the machine generated interpretations required correction after review, but these were outnumbered by the number of cases where, after review, the machine was considered to have got it right, not the original human!

 June / July 2021

Automation of the design process

this conundrum, but it would be wrong to allow this to be a barrier to much needed progress. We will have to work through it.

This is where things start to get really interesting. There is plenty of scope for There are some who are ambivalent, or even using automation to help with factual and hostile, to automation, fearing interpretative reporting, but that many will lose their automation of analysis and ... automation of jobs. However, others see design calculations is likely analysis and design the opportunities that it to be one of the main digital calculations is likely can bring, such as allowing battlegrounds in the coming to be one of the main us to do more analysis, years. digital battlegrounds in considering more scenarios, As mentioned above, digital to create better designs the coming years. 3D ground models are already for our clients. If we get a reality on many projects. One this right, we should be area ripe for development is finding a better able to spend more time on real design and way to input these models directly into less on manually transferring data from one analysis/design software, replacing what is bit of software to another. We need to make currently mainly a manual process. However, sure that, as an industry, we are all aligned in we need to think carefully about what model looking to deliver real change and real benefits. we use for input. We are most familiar with We must avoid being drawn into a race to the the ‘geological (observational) model’ which bottom (on time/cost). It is within our gift. is our best guess of what we think might Automation in construction be going on based on the conceptual model and lessons learned from our education and Digital transformation is not confined to the experience. However, for analysis we should design office. There are many opportunities for be using a ‘geotechnical design model’ which increased use of digital technologies on site. also takes account of uncertainties and code requirements. These models can be compiled Digital field capture of data for ground by an intelligent digital partner by prompting investigation and construction is now starting the geotechnical engineer to make key to become routine, although we still have some decisions relating to geological setting and how way to go on this. to account for ground related risks. Augmented reality, where models and the real One of the main concerns expressed about world can be visualised together, is an underautomation of design is that we will forget used technology that certainly merits further how to do the design calculations, with the attention. younger generation not learning at all. This Automation of construction processes is is a legitimate concern, and it is by no means the next frontier. Will we see robots running unique to ground engineering. If we automate around construction sites? One day, perhaps, (or perhaps when we automate is more but the reality of construction automation may correct) we will need redefine the role of the be slightly more down to earth. For example, human in the design process. We will probably it may include automated boring or piling rigs, still be doing some sort of verification, which or earthworks equipment, with humans still should allow us to practice our skills and in attendance but with more of the work and judgement. We don’t have all the answers to decision making done by the machines.

“

Magazine

Automation of earthworks operations is the one of the main subjects of research and development in the ground domain, and there are already many examples of digital technologies being used to good effect. Typical applications include tracking of compaction plant, to provide information on number of passes, to assess specification compliance. Another example, published recently in NCE, shows how a contractor is monitoring earthworks vehicle movements on a large linear infrastructure site, then using AI to optimise utilisation of the fleet.

in our heads. It is unrealistic to ask all ground specialists to become digital specialists, and the authors believe that it would be wrong to significantly dilute or reduce most individual’s knowledge of ground engineering (whatever branch that happens to be) to make way for lots of digital skills. However, getting digital specialists to do all of our digital legwork is not the right answer either. We should aim for a general increase in awareness and knowledge of digital issues and capabilities at all grades, including the oldies. Digital specialists may still be brought in for the heavy development work, but it would also be helpful to have some people with a foot in both camps.

This is not digitisation for the sake of digitisation as there are some important additional benefits that can be obtained by automating construction. Firstly, there is the obvious benefit to health and safety if we can Whatever the arrangement, we need ground keep as many humans as and digital specialists to possible out of harm’s way. work together to identify If we leave it all to This is one of the main drivers the problems that need the digital people for research in this domain. to be solved, and the then we may get lots improvements that can be The other benefits are of shiny new toys, but made. If we leave it all to the perhaps not so obvious, digital people then we may not the ones we really but should be of interest to get lots of shiny new toys, wanted. ground specialists. Digitisation but not the ones we really and automation of construction wanted. will very likely lead to increased monitoring of the processes. This additional data could In conclusion prove very useful, if we choose to leverage Much of this article has talked about it. A further benefit should be improved some of the potential problems that digital consistency of processes which, when taken transformation may bring. However, our together with the extra monitoring, should mission has been to inform, challenge, and leave us with better build quality, and better hopefully allay some fears. Digitisation is records. coming, and we should embrace it, as it will We will still need humans to keep a close offer great opportunities for improvement eye on things as the ground never ceases to within our industry and can be seen as an aid conjure up surprises, but if we get this right we to help us communicate even more effectively could end up in a much better and safer place. with our colleagues, clients, and the public.

“

Do we all need to be digital experts? A good question, that has been answered many times by many people, with many different answers given. The reality is that we can only hold a limited amount of knowledge

However, if we are going to get the most from it, we need ground specialists to work with the digital specialists. The digital specialists may know how to get there, but we need to tell them where to go.

June / July 2021

Incorporating Drone Technology Ground Engineering Projects Transforming the work of a remediation contractor Article contributed by Blaise Hodges, Senior Land Surveyor, Cognition Land and Water Andy O’Dea, Technical Director, Cognition Land and Water

rones (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles UAVs) are quickly becoming one of the most useful tools on a typical construction site, offering rapid data collection for topographical surveys or site 4D imagery. Drone arial footage and 4D model mock-ups allow quick access to valuable site data and visual information. Whether it’s for initial site pricing strategies, refining pre-design processes or recording work progress, our

Magazine

investment in drone technology is allowing our teams to work safer and more efficiently, whilst delivering tangible benefits for our clients. As our drone uses GPS and obstacle avoidance systems, it can be programmed and manoeuvred accurately to precise locations on site and follow pre-determined flight paths. This creates an extremely valuable and multifaceted tool that can be used in a variety of situations. Such tools and facilities have had a big impact on our work, primarily in the management of earthworks projects. Outlined below are a number of ways in which the application of drone technology and surveying techniques have delivered significant benefits, efficiencies and improvements in data capture

y into volumetric analysis or drawings. Drone surveys allow all of this work to be done in a fraction of the time.

and delivery on our projects.

Faster and more accurate site surveys For most surveyors/ engineers, there are two simple reasons for using drones for earthworks speed and accuracy. With conventional land-based surveying techniques, it can take many hours to walk the site and measure aggregates and stockpiles. Subsequently, it often takes several days to process the data and deliver the required

As an example, our Senior Land Surveyor recently carried out a drone survey of a large For most construction site in less than surveyors/ 20 minutes to collect data engineers, there are on earthworks stockpiles. It was not possible to carry out two simple reasons the survey with traditional for using drones for ground-based systems earthworks - speed due to soft and overgrown and accuracy. With ground conditions. The conventional landpost-survey processing took a matter of hours, based surveying despite handling thousands techniques, it can take rather than scores of many hours to walk surveyed points across the the site and measure site surfaces. In addition to aggregates and the very significant time saving, the far greater stockpiles.

“



June / July 2021

number of survey points provides scope for surveying is used for key site features such many more outputs such as an orthomosaic as bottom of banks, edges showing changes point cloud and a 4D digital of surfaces and heights. The Drones have terrain model (DTM) of the drone data collection is site. then carried out on a grid dramatically throughout remaining reduced the manual Using proprietary Pix4D areas, eliminating the risks work needed to software, access to the associated with climbing survey model can be provided perform a cut-and-fill stockpiles and providing to the client and project team volumetric analysis truly accurate data. via a simple web link. This following the site then allows the whole project Drones have dramatically survey. team to inspect, manipulate reduced the manual work and interrogate the model as needed to perform a cutwell as access to high resolution images, on and-fill volumetric analysis following the site screen visuals and tools to measure terrain survey. Once the aerial data is collected, drone dimensions, etc. Stockpile volumes can be software platforms like Pix4D enables cloud calculated, distances and areas measured, and processing and final export into Autodesk file OS co-ordinates given - all with a few mouse formats like a DXF or a point cloud file that can clicks. It is a truly powerful data and imagery be used in Civil 3D or LSS design software. presentation system that is accessible to all. This has allowed us to streamline our cutPerforming cut-and-fill volumetric and-fill workflow, speeding up the process analysis significantly. We have estimated that we can now carry out volumetric analysis and cut and We often utilise traditional GPS surveying in fill calculations in about one-third the time it tandem with drone surveys to extract the best took us previously. This provides cost savings of both approaches. Traditional ground-based to our clients and greater time to interrogate

“

Magazine

the output of the analysis and formulate innovative and novel solutions to the ground engineering problems presented to us.

Such interim surveys also provide robust data for interim works measurement and payment applications.

Verifying work and managing conflicts

Site inspections and tender support

During the course of an earthworks project, We will often use drone surveys in support it is vital to regularly monitor progress, of our tender and estimating work. A quick especially at key milestones, to ensure the drone survey carried out at the tender stage works are progressing to programme. Drone can provide invaluable information to both the surveys have become an invaluable tool in this client and contractor on the site conditions, monitoring and verification building (current and former) process. footprints, topography, site We fly our sites restrictions, earthworks as often as is We fly our sites as often as required by the project volumes, building condition, is required by the project to etc. satisfactorily record progress. to satisfactorily record We then process the images Drones can capture images progress. We then into an orthomosaic, and process the images into and videos, allowing for hence into an elevation map detailed mapping and an orthomosaic, and that can be compared to easy access to inspect and hence into an elevation the initial site plans as the prepare volumetric data project progresses. This for cut and fill calculations. map that can be allows for clear and robust compared to the initial Gathering information recording and monitoring site plans as the project through a single drone at important phases of the survey allows for a far better progresses. project. Importantly, this understanding of the key information enables more project risks, makes the focused quality control as well as providing costings on a project more accurate and saves site managers with detailed information on significant time in the tender stage by avoiding progress to allow closer and more accurate multiple site visits. management of resources and expenditure.

“



June / July 2021

The speed at which we can now perform quite complex and detailed imaging, topographic and volumetric surveys means that we will often provide our initial drone survey as a free service to our clients at the tender stage, giving us a clear advantage and differentiator against our competition.

representation of the site and help provide powerful visual information to site managers for use in site inductions or toolbox talks. Drone surveys may even be used to conduct safety inspections or audits at large sites and this is something that we are looking to introduce shortly.

Improved worker safety

A powerful tool

In the field, surveyors and engineers spend hours on the ground collecting data or overseeing site-based work. This is not only time-consuming but can be deemed as a risky activity. Often, site rules or risk assessments will not allow personnel to access stockpiles or move freely around the site due to plant movement and other site risks. Traversing steep slopes that are uneven and potentially unstable is an activity fraught with dangers. This can all be avoided by the use of a drone survey. Site engineers and personnel can inspect and quantify the site, earthworks, slopes and stockpiles from a safe distance avoiding all associated trip and fall hazards.

We hope that the examples provided above give a flavour for the powerful benefits that drone surveys have made at our company and how investment in this technology has revolutionised the way in which we inspect, manage, record, and report the work we do. It is fair to say that it has been a game-changer for Cognition Land and Water and we would be happy to share our experiences with you further if that would be helpful.

To assist with communicating key site risks to the workforce, a drone aerial photography survey will allow for a good overall

Magazine

Cognition Land and Water is a specialist ground engineering and contamination remediation contractor with the capability to deliver all ground-related aspects of construction projects from site investigations, remediation, earthworks, and ground engineering, through to civil engineering and concrete-framed structures.

PFAS – the greatest challenge for the site investigation and laboratory industries?

Article contributed by Geraint Williams, ALS Life Sciences, Member of the Contaminated Land and Laboratories Working Groups

orever chemicals. This is the ominous title often given to PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) which hints at both the reason for their use and their potential impact to human health and the environment. These substances are the latest entry into the list of contaminants that have resulted in long-term exposure over the last several decades. Their predecessors include lead, asbestos and hexavalent chromium, the focus of the 2000 Erin Brockovich film, plus many more. But PFAS pose many difficulties

their predecessors did not. This article briefly reviews these challenges and provides an overview of emerging laboratory techniques for analysis of PFAS.

What are PFAS? In 2015, the Swedish Chemicals Agency (KEMI) identified over 3,000 PFAS on the global market1. A more recent study identified approximately 4,700 Chemical Abstract Services (CAS) Registry Numbers associated with individual PFAS or PFAS mixtures2. In 2019, the US EPA assembled a master list of 6,330 PFAS that combines information from several existing lists into one3. The total number of PFAS may be even larger, given that some PFAS class members lack CAS numbers, and many are not intentionally manufactured but are transformed in the environment.



June / July 2021

PFAS can be broadly subdivided into four interrelated categories: perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs), PFAA precursors, perfluoropolyethers (PFPEs), and fluoropolymers4, 5. PFAAs are the most studied PFAS subgroup. They are recalcitrant and extremely persistent in the environment. Examples of PFAAs include perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids (PFCAs) such as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluoroalkyl sulfonic acids (PFSAs) such as Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluoroalkyl sulfonic acids (PFSiAs), perfluoroalkyl phosphonic acids (PFPAs), perfluoroalkyl phosphonic acids (PFPiAs), perfluoroether carboxylic acids (PFECAs) such as GenX, and perfluoroether sulfonic acids (PFESAs) such as 4,8-dioxa-3Hperfluorononanoate (ADONA). PFAAs and their precursors are further subdivided according to their chain length, which is viewed as indicative of their bioaccumulation potential. By convention, the longer-chain PFSAs are those with six or more perfluorinated carbons; longer-chain PFCAs, PFPAs and PFPiAs are

Magazine

those with seven or more perfluorinated carbons5. The definition of longer vs. shorterchain PFAS is less clear for perfluoroethers. The focus of risk assessment has been on a very narrow sub-set of PFAAs which are all extremely persistent and are also known to be mobile and bio-accumulative. This persistence, along with their high solubility, low to moderate absorption to soils, and lack of volatility can result in very extended groundwater plumes (potentially multiple miles). PFAS have the potential to migrate over a much wider area than conventional contaminants6.

PFAS Regulation PFOS and its salts, and perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride (POSF) are listed as persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in Annex B of the Stockholm Convention, whereas perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), its salts, and related compounds are listed in Annex A7. Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), its salts, and related compounds

are currently under review for listing8. Several PFAS are included in the European Chemicals Agency’s (ECHA) Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) Candidate List of Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC)9. The EU annual average environmental quality standard (AA-EQS) for PFOS in surface freshwater is set at a very low criterion of 0.65 ng/l, based on the potential for secondary poisoning in humans due to fish consumption.

well as suppressed immune system response, dyslipidemia and impaired kidney function. The European Food Standards Agency (EFSA) set a new tolerable weekly intake (TWI) of 4.4 ng/kg/bw/pw. Their opinion focused on the sum of four PFAS: PFOA, PFOS, pefluorononanoic acid (PFNA) and PFHxS14. When some major manufacturers phased out the production of long-chain legacy PFAS, most industries turned to structurally similar replacements including homologues with fewer fluorinated carbons or other less well known PFAS e.g. per- and polyfluoroalkyl ether-based substances. These replacement PFAS were marketed by producers as safer alternatives because of their presumed lower toxicity and lower level of bioaccumulation. There are, however, several studies and growing evidence to suggest that certain replacement PFAS have become regrettable substitutes15.

The US has set a lifetime health advisory level for PFOA and PFOS, individually or combined, of 70 ng/l in drinking water10. Several US states have also set their own drinking water guideline levels for PFOA and PFOS. Whilst in the UK, the Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) has recently revised our own standards11 which follow a 3-tier system where PFOS or PFOA requiring monitoring is set at 10 ng/l. The concentration requiring treatment, as representing a potential danger to human health is set at 100 ng/l for PFOS and PFOA and Less is known about the thousands of polyfluorinated PFAAs precursors, which the concentration at which can transform in the exposure from drinking environment through The toxicology of water should be reduced multiple intermediates to within 7 days is set at 1 µg/l. PFAAs is evolving, ultimately create PFAAs as but questions remain Toxicology end-products. Intermediate unanswered about transformation products The toxicology of PFAAs include the 6:2 fluorotelomer the potential adverse is evolving, but questions sulphonate (6:2 FTS) and health outcomes, remain unanswered about though some are shown 5:3 fluorotelomer carboxylic the potential adverse health acid (5:3 FTCA) which are outcomes, though some are in the 2019 film Dark described to bioaccumulate shown in the 2019 film Dark Waters. in marine invertebrates Waters12. Potential adverse and rats respectively, and human health effects and risk the final transformation factors from longer-chain PFAA exposure products, the short chain PFAAs are shown include increased serum cholesterol13, thyroid concentrating in crops 16, 17. disease, immune dysregulation, pregnancyinduced hypertension, and kidney and Conceptual Site Models testicular cancers. Other studies have found positive correlations between long-chain PFAA A robust, site specific Conceptual Site Model (CSM) remains the basis for assessing exposure and low birth weight in humans, as

“



June / July 2021

potential risks. It is necessary to have a products) detailed understanding of the topography, • Chrome Plating sites geology, hydrology and • Electronics manufacturing hydrogeology for all sites. In • Firefighting – class B ...knowledge of the addition, knowledge of the firefighting foams (fire types, properties and fate training area/fire stations) types, properties and transport of PFAS along • Landfills and fate and transport with biotransformation of • Military bases of PFAS along with precursors are all crucial • Paper and cardboard biotransformation aspects in conceptualising manufacturing of precursors are all PFAS sources, pathways, and • Petrochemical industry receptors. • PFAS production crucial aspects in • Photolithography and conceptualising PFAS Because short-chain sources, pathways and semiconductor lithography perfluoroalkyl substances • Textiles and leather receptors. have, to a large extent manufacturing replaced the long-chain • Wastewater treatment PFAS, the levels of short-chain works PFAS such as perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA), This list is not intended to be exhaustive. perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) and perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA), have While PFAS sources are varied, the release increased in environmental media. Shortof aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) is a chain PFAAs are very soluble in water and common source of PFAS contamination at therefore might represent even more of a risk airports, military bases and major oil and to drinking water because of groundwater gas facilities. It is these types of sites that contamination. The shorter chain PFAAs are subject to most investigation currently generally have lower organic carbon in the UK. The combination of complex partitioning co-efficients than longer chain AFFF compositions and numerous types compounds. of foams used throughout decades of fire training, equipment testing, and emergency The potential presence of PFAS should be response scenarios has resulted in highly taken into account during the preliminary diverse mixtures of PFAS being present in the investigation stage. No direct reference is subsurface. made to PFAS in the former Department of Environment Industry Profiles, which were Perfluoroalkyl sulphonates tend to sorb more written before there was increased awareness strongly than perfluoroalkyl carboxylates of these contaminants, however PFAS might be of equivalent perfluoroalkyl chain length. present at a range of sites including where they Sorption of PFAS can also be influenced by are primarily manufactured or have been used the presence of co-contaminants such as in the processing of related products. nonaqueous phase liquids and nonfluorinated surfactants, which typically increase sorption The major industries and applications are potential to soils17. summarised below: • Aviation and aerospace (military and civil PFAS can readily penetrate the concrete pad airfields) at fire training areas. PFAS self-assemble • Carpet manufacturing on concrete surfaces which are relatively • Chemical works (cosmetic/personal care porous. They then act as a long-term source of

“

Magazine

contamination in run-off and drainage.

compounds. There are, however, many more PFAS which will be left undetermined including a significant number of polyfluoroalkyl substances.

The presence of cationic and zwitterionic precursors in many Class B firefighting foams could act As a “targeted” as an on-going source of the analytical more frequently regulated technique, the results and measured PFAAs are limited to a fixed such as PFOS, PFHxS and suite of components. PFOA. These precursors are incompletely extracted from In other words, the soils by current analytical results do not provide techniques essentially a comprehensive developed for anionic PFAS measure of the total (see below). The cationic extent of PFAS that and zwitterionic classes can contribute up to 97% of the may exist, nor does this total PFAS mass especially in approach measure the source zones soils18.

“

PFAS are primarily analysed by liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/ MS). Water samples are extracted using solid phase extraction (SPE) and soils extracted with methanol. As a “targeted” analytical technique, the results are limited to a fixed suite of components. In other words, the results do not provide a comprehensive potential for targeted measure of the total extent The analytical challenges PFAS formation due of PFAS that may exist, and emerging techniques to transformation of nor does this approach precursors over time. measure the potential for PFAS are also challenging targeted PFAS formation contaminants because most due to transformation of constituents cannot be detected precursors over time. by conventional analytical techniques. Conventional methods used by UK laboratories allow for the analysis of around 20 different

In order to identify the presence of precursors,

 June / July 2021

“

TOP assay (total oxidisable be useful to use alongside During the precursors) was developed. existing approaches oxidation process, Sample preparation follows although there is a tradethe assay generates the same procedures as are off between selectivity and an excess of hydroxyl traditionally used for targeted inclusivity. LC-MS/MS analysis. TOP radicals to convert In addition, there have assay converts precursors in these compounds. been recent advances a sample which are detectable in High Resolution Mass by routine analysis. Results are Spectrometry (HRMS) such as LC- Quadrupole provided both pre and post digest. The assay time-of-flight mass spectrometry (LC-qTOF/ includes steps to oxidise PFAAs precursors MS) and Orbitrap techniques which can be using heat and alkaline activated persulfate. used to determine both the chemical formula During the oxidation process, the assay and structure of unknown PFAS. These generates an excess of hydroxyl radicals method have the potential to greatly increase to convert these compounds. TOP assay is widely available and has been used to estimate the number of identified PFAS compounds and provide more accurate source identification. the concentration of PFAS which contain HRMS is best suited for samples in which a detectable perfluoroalkyl group. It is the unknown PFAS are likely to be present in most selective of PFAS surrogate analytical methods, in that it determines compounds that significant concentrations. LC-qTOF/MS or other HRMS techniques give a more detailed can be oxidised to form targeted PFAAs. understanding especially where chain-length More recently, there has been increasing specific concentrations are required. focus to develop and validate complementary Conclusions screening tools that provide As the a comprehensive measure As the transformation of transformation of of total PFAS impact. This precursors to PFAAs can has resulted in several precursors to PFAAs have important implications methods for analysing Total for risk assessment, can have important Organic Fluorine (TOF) understanding their relative implications for as a proxy for total PFAS contribution to total PFAS risk assessment, contamination. TOF is concentrations is critical to understanding their determined by Combustion determining the remediation Ion Chromatography (CIC) relative contribution options for impacted sites. and measures extractable or A robust and reliable CSM to total PFAS adsorbable organofluorine in is required and techniques concentrations is a range of matrices. such as TOP assay have role

“

critical to determining

to play. The concept of a “PFAS the remediation options screening tool” approach Only a small fraction of for impacted sites. is being evaluated by the known PFAS can been US EPA, which is in the process measured via targeted of developing a new analytical method for chemical analysis and many more PFAS are measuring TOF in environmental samples. likely to occur in the environment than are The USEPA TOF method is anticipated to be routinely analysed. published later this year. TOF analysis could

Magazine

PFAS are used in a wide range of applications and typically occur in complex mixtures which present a unique challenge to laboratories. In contrast, there is a very limited number of laboratory standards available. The more we learn about PFAS contamination, we realise that the problem is more widespread than previously thought. The requirement to investigate much larger areas may become a necessity with better understanding of CSMs. Non-targeted PFAS analysis could be used to screen extensive areas, identifying hot spots of contamination directing efforts for parts of the site that require further investigation and characterisation with targeted and traditional analytical methods. Use of TOP assay in combination with other less selective methods like TOF may become a popular approach to gain additional information about the nature of the unidentified fluorine fraction and its relevance as a source of PFAAs. The addition of HRMS for non-targeted and suspect screening analyses can offer valuable information about the unidentified fraction of organic fluorine.

References 1.

3. 4.

KEMI (Swedish Chemicals Agency). 2015. Occurrence and use of highly fluorinated substances and alternatives. Report from a government assignment. Swedish Chemicals Agency (KEMI) Stockholm, Sweden OECD. 2018. Toward a New Comprehensive Global Database of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs): Summary Report on Updating the OECD 2007 List of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs). Series on Risk Management No. 39. ENV/ JM/MONO(2018)7. Paris, France: OECD. U.S. EPA. 2020b. PFAS Master List of PFAS Substances (Version 2). Wang Z, DeWitt JC, Higgins CP, Cousins IT. 2017. A never-ending story of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs)? Environ Sci Technol 51(5):2508–2518. Buck RC, Franklin J, Berger U, Conder JM, Cousins IT, de Voogt P, et al. 2011. Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances in the environment: terminology, classification, and origins. Integr Environ Assess Manag 7(4):513–541.

6. Ross I., Donough J., Mile J., Storch P., Kochunarayanan T., Kalve E., Hurst J., Dasgupta S., Burdick J. A review of emerging technologies for remediation of PFASs Remediation 2018: 28 101-126. 7. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2020. All POPs listed in the Stockholm Convention. 8. POPRC (Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee). 2020. POPRC recommendations for listing chemicals. 9. ECHA (European Chemicals Agency). 2020. Candidate list of substances of very high concern for authorisation. 10. U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2020a. Drinking water health advisories for PFOA and PFOS. 11. Drinking Water Inspectorate (2021) Guidance on the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2016 (as amended) specific to PFOS (perfluorooctane sulphonate) and PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) concentrations in drinking water. 12. C8 Science Panel. 2012b. Probable link evaluation of thyroid disease. 30 July 2012. 13. Skuladottir M, Ramel A, Rytter D, Haug LS, Sabaredzovic A, Bech BH, et al. 2015. Examining confounding by diet in the association between perfluoroalkyl acids and serum cholesterol in pregnancy. Environ Res 143(pt A):33–38, PMID: 26432473, 10.1016/j.envres.2015.09.001. 14. ESA (2020) Risk to human health related to the presence of perfluoroalkyl substances in food 15. Brendel S, Fetter É, Staude C, Vierke L, BiegelEngler A. 2018. Short-chain perfluoroalkyl acids: environmental concerns and a regulatory strategy under REACH. Environ Sci Eur 30(1):9, PMID: 29527446, 10.1186/s12302-018-0134-4. 16. Caverly Rae, J. M.; Craig, L.; Slone, T. W.; Frame, S. R.; Buxton, L. W.; Kennedy, G. L. Evaluation of chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity of ammonium 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-2-(heptafluoropropoxy)propanoate in Sprague-Dawley rats. Toxicol Rep 2015, 2, 939− 949. 17. Langburg, H. A., Breedveld G.D., Gronning H. M., Kvennas M., Jenssen B.M, Hale S. Bioaccumulation of Fluorotelomer Sulfonates and Perfluoroaklyl Acids in Marine Organisms Living in Aqueous Film-Forming Foam Impacted Waters 18. Guelfo, J. L., & Higgins, C. P. (2013). Subsurface transport potential of perfluoroalkyl acids at aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF)-impacted sites. Environmental Science & Technology, 47(9) 19. Nickerson A., Maizel A.C., Poonam R., Kulkarni R., Adamson D.T., Kornuc J.J., Higgins C.P. Enhanced Extraction of AFFF-Associated PFASs from Source Zone Soils. Environ Sci. Technol. 2020 54 4952-4962

June / July 2021

FR E E T O A TT E N D

7 - 8 JUL Y 2 0 2 1

W A R W I C K S HI R E E V E N T CE N T R E

Unlike other large-scale events that feature ‘geo’ content, Geotechnica has always been entirely focussed on the UK geotechnical and geoenvironmental industry. This year the timing for Geotechnica could not be better as it will be the ﬁrst major event and opportunity to network face to face after lockdown has been lifted. Geotechnica 2021 focusses on driving the industry forward and promoting new methods, innovation and new approaches. The event will provide a platform for collaboration, geotechnical community engagement, collective learning and discussion. The trade show will have over 50 exhibitors ready to discuss their services and products and will be a welcome opportunity to start meeting and greeting old and new friends. Along with the major geotechnical exhibition, this year there will be two major technical conferences. The main conference will focus on aspects which promote improved procurement, future growth, safety and well-being. NEW for this year is the Early Career Geopractitioner Conference which will provide a series of high quality technical talks aimed to develop our future talent.

Wednesday 7th July 2021

Ground Investigation Procurement Summit 10:00 – 10:15

Introduction Julian Lovell Past Chair of AGS and Procurement of GI Steering Group

10:15 – 11:00

Keynote – Inﬂuencing Government and Procuring for Value & the Value Toolkit Prof John Nolan CBE Past Chairman of CIC and Past President of IStructE

11:00 – 11:30

11:30 – 12:00

13:30 – 14:00

14:00 – 15:00

ECI and addressing the designer / contractor interface Patrick Cox Managing Director for Environmental Solutions, AECOM and Chair 2021 – Think Deep UK Procurement of Ground Investigation – Third Edition Revision Julian Lovell Chair of ‘Yellow Book’ Third Edition Revision Working Group NEC Conditions of Contract for Geotechnical Works Neil Parry Technical Director, Geotechnical Engineering Panel Session Richard Patterson Procurement and NEC Specialist, Mott MacDonald Gary Walker Associate Technical Director, ARCADIS

Magazine

Thursday 8th July 2021

Health, safety, well-being and sustainability 10:00 – 10:15

Introduction Julian Lovell Managing Director, Equipe Group

10:15 – 10:45

A safety ﬁrst approach to ground engineering activities Jon Rayner SHE Director, AECOM

10:45 – 11:15

Reducing the risk of damage to buried services – PAS 128 explained George Tuckwell Director, RSK

11:15 – 11:45

Control and management of asbestos risk in soils Sam Lord Occupational Hygiene Portfolio Holder for Asbestos, HSE

11:45 – 12:15

Human Factors – sharing best practice across safety critical industries Ross Priday CEO, Kura Human Factors

12:15 – 12:30

BDA Audit Paul McMann Vice-Chair, British Drilling Association

13:45 – 14:15

Setting the scene for decarbonisation Luke Deamer Practitioner doctorate in sustainability, Keller and University of Surrey

14:15 – 14:45

Decarbonisation in action Stuart Norman Managing Director (Piling), Keltbray

O R G A N I S E D BY

SUPPORTED BY

HOSTED BY

The geotechnical community may soon be facing one of its biggest challenges ever as geoscience degrees have reported signiﬁcant declines in numbers of students on their courses. The AGS are working with the University Geoscience UK Group to monitor the eﬀects on industry but in the meantime training of our young and early career geopractioners remains a priority. The Early Career Geopractitioner Conference will comprise a series of hard-hitting short duration talks provided by leading UK experts. This will provide a unique training and learning development experience for recent graduates and those in the early development of their geotechnical / geoenvironmental career. The principle aim of the conference will be to engage with the future practitioners of our industry, share knowledge and provide an opportunity for discussion.

Wednesday 7th July 2021

Early Career Geopractitioners Conference 09:45 – 10:00

Introduction Liz Withington Principal Engineering Geologist, CC Ground Investigations

10:00 – 10:45

Planning to succeed – standards and Standards Prof. David Norbury Director, David Norbury Limited

10:45 – 11:15

Designing out risk Tom Philips Director, RPA Safety Services

11:15 – 11:45

Thursday 8th July 2021

Early Career Geopractitioners Conference 10:00 – 10:15

Introduction Peter Reading Director, PRGC

10:15 - 10:45

Ground Investigation - Choosing appropriate strategies, structures and techniques Len Threadgold Chief Engineer, Geotechnics

10:45 – 11:15

Essentials of a good desk study Hugh Mallett Technical Director, Buro Happold

Using geophysics to optimise site investigation strategy Edward Cox Lead Geophysicist, Fugro Geoservices

11:15 – 11:45

13:30 – 14:00

Developing the Ground Model Chris Vincett Technical Director, Hydrock

In situ testing - CPT and Pressuremeter Darren Ward Managing Director, In Situ SI

13:30 – 14:00

14:00 – 14:30

Sample Quality – Class 1 is it really the holy grail or just good practice? Dr John Powell Technical Advisor, Geolabs

Non-intrusive techniques – Part 2, downhole & cross hole James Whitford Managing Director, European Geophysical Services

14:00 – 14:30

14:30 – 15:00

The future is digital: GeoEnvironmental ground investigations are the basis for safe, resilient and sustainable circular land use Prof. Paul Nathanail Technical Director, GHD Judith Nathanail, Director, LQM

Risks without instrumentation and monitoring Jonathan Gammon Non-Executive Director/Advisor, Geotechnical Observations

June / July 2021

Asbestos in soil and quantitative risk assessment Discussion on a way forward? Article contributed by Jo Wilding, Associate Technical Director, RSK (SoBRA Executive Committee) Simon Cole, Technical Practice Lead, AECOM (SoBRA Chair)

aboratory reporting of asbestos in soil is a key data component of quantitative risk assessment for human health, and for the risk-based management of asbestos in

Magazine

soils. Asbestos in soil poses a hazard to human health when it becomes airborne, and the inhaled fibres can result in diseases including mesothelioma and lung cancer. Therefore the relationship between asbestos in soil and the resulting fibre concentration in air is a fundamental, but complex, element of human health risk assessment. In the UK, there is no current consensus on which air

quality guidelines should be used to assess potential risks to human health from exposure to asbestos in soils once airborne. This in turn means that there is no UK regulatory or industry-agreed good practice for the assessment of risks from asbestos in soils, which are being - or could be - released to air and subsequently inhaled. Key elements to an asbestos risk assessment are (i) asbestos identification and characterisation, (ii) receptor exposure, (iii) an understanding of background exposure and (iv) assessment criteria at an appropriate risk level that distinguish between relative risks from different types and forms of asbestos.

of asbestos in soils in the UK. The datasets do not distinguish between sample origin – be that a greenfield site or a brownfield site nor do they distinguish between large datasets from one or a small number of sites and small datasets from a larger number of sites.

Typically laboratory testing follows a sequential three stage process akin to the one presented in the Standing Committee of Analysts ‘Blue Book’ method (withdrawn in October 2020; SCA, 2017). However, the data presented in the paper is a result of different laboratory methods or sub-sets of methods and will include analysis undertaken by different methods over time by the same laboratory. The The Society of three stages are:

The Society of Brownfield Risk Assessment (SoBRA) has recently published two Brownfield Risk Stage 1: The determination discussion papers relating and identification of Assessment (SoBRA) to asbestos in soil laboratory has recently published presence or absence analysis and reporting. These of asbestos using two discussion papers were published alongside stereomicroscopy, plus relating to asbestos in an update to the discussion higher magnification paper on guidelines for soil laboratory analysis polarised light microscopy airborne concentrations of (PLM) analysis for fine fibres and reporting. asbestos fibres in ambient air: (see HSG 248, HSE, 2005). implications for risk assessment. Stage 2: The removal of All three papers build on the series of SoBRA asbestos containing material (ACM) and fibre papers published by the asbestos sub-group bundles with identification and gravimetric in 2015 that looked at sampling protocols, analysis to determine percentage by weight. activity-based sampling, conceptual models, and example decision making under Part 2A of Stage 3: The dispersion and collection of free fibres followed by fibre identification, counting the Environmental Protection Act 1990. and measurement of fibres to determine Data mining of laboratory data percentage by weight. SoBRA issued a request to major UK soil From a dataset of approximately 175,000 laboratories in 2016 to provide SoBRA with samples, during Stage 1, asbestos was not anonymised asbestos in soil laboratory data. detected in most samples submitted to the five The distribution of asbestos in soil discussion laboratories. When positively identified the paper provides a factual presentation of the majority of asbestos detected was chrysotile. data shared by five UK laboratories (ALS, DETS, The majority of reported concentrations Envirolab, i2, and REC). The data presented in of free fibres detected in soils that have the paper is, naturally, a reflection of the soil undergone Stage 3 analysis following a samples sent to the testing laboratories rather positive identification at Stage 1 were below than a reflection of background concentrations the method reporting limit of 0.001% wt/

“



June / July 2021

wt. (Note that these samples are typically, but not always, those that have had a positive identification at Stage 1; it is rare for samples with a negative ID at Stage 1 to progress to Stages 2 or 3).

Variability in UK laboratory methods and reporting

“

When considering accreditation and proficiency, which is a key element for data quality, all laboratories surveyed participated in the HSL Proficiency Testing Scheme Asbestos in Soil Scheme (AISS) but only 70% of the laboratories responded that they held UKAS accreditation for Stage 1 identification of asbestos.

There is, however, significant variability in UK laboratory methods for the identification and quantification of asbestos in soil. A SoBRA survey of 10 UK laboratories in 2018 raises questions about the data that is reported and its subsequent applicability for use in human health risk assessment. The survey was designed to complement a similar survey of UK laboratories undertaken by the AGS and reported in February 2019

Magazine

(Mitcheson, 2019). The survey highlighted that laboratories do not follow the same sample preparation and analytical procedures, nor do they report in the same way. Only 70% of laboratories follow the ‘Blue Book’ method; the method used by the remaining 30% of laboratories was not explored. Even those who follow the ’Blue Book’ implement that method in different ways that could significantly influence the results reported.

they held UKAS accreditation for Stage 1 identification of asbestos.

A small number of laboratories did respond that they could provide asbestos type differentiation at quantification if required during Stage 2 and Stage 3, along with photographic evidence if requested, but this was not routine.

Total sample size (weight) requested, sample size (weight) used in Stage 1, and sample preparation for Stage 1 and Stage 3, varied considerably between laboratories. No laboratory routinely reported at what Reporting recommendations sub-stage within Stage 1 asbestos was The SoBRA paper on UK laboratory detected (i.e. during visual inspection methods for the identification and using stereomicroscopy or during higher quantification of asbestos in soil makes a magnification PLM microscopy) and therefore series of recommendations for laboratory when the sample inspection stopped. All reporting of asbestos in soil results based such variables could have implications for the on the requirement for human health determination and identification of presence risk assessment to be supported by clear, / absence of asbestos in the unambiguous laboratory data. soil samples, and the type The SoBRA One key element is the of asbestos reported to be recommendations reporting of types and forms present in Stage 1. of asbestos, for all each [...] for laboratory With regards to the data type and form of asbestos reporting of asbestos needed to inform a human identified. Within Stage 1 in soil results would health risk assessment, this should be for each of only 20% of laboratory ensure that the data visual inspection, detailed responses indicated that provided by the inspection under x20-x40 they would routinely provide stereomicroscope and pinch laboratory is clear and comment on the condition samples under x80-x500 unambiguous. of the asbestos identified in magnification (PLM). Within Stage 1 (i.e. weathered, degraded, Stage 2 individual masses non-degraded, disaggregated, not in original for each type and form of asbestos identified form) in addition to identifying the presence should be reported, with mass reported in mg/ or absence of the three principal types of kg not %wt/wt. asbestos, and the form of that asbestos. A The SoBRA recommendations (the full detail lines of evidence approach is often needed of which is presented in the SoBRA paper) for for asbestos risk assessment. For example, laboratory reporting of asbestos in soil results non-degraded asbestos material is that which despite being in or on the ground is in relatively would ensure that the data provided by the laboratory is clear and unambiguous. With good condition and capable of retaining most the withdrawal of the of the SCA ‘Blue Book’ of the asbestos fibres. As such, non-degraded method for the determination of asbestos in asbestos material may pose a lower risk to human health and should be considered within soil, now is an opportune time for industry to adopt a new approach the analysis and the risk assessment. Asbestos containing reporting of asbestos in soil. Consistency is materials that have been significantly required in sample preparation, analytical damaged or degraded will be more likely to procedures and reporting to ensure the release fibres and therefore pose a greater risk resulting human health risk assessment can to human health. be undertaken with confidence.

“



June / July 2021

When considering the data required within a human health risk assessment, there are other laboratory test methods that focus less on the reporting of the mass of asbestos present in the sample and focus more on the potential for airborne asbestos fibres arising from asbestos in soil. Two such methods that have been developed, or are in the process of being developed, by UK laboratories are:

guidelines for asbestos fibres, provided both by international bodies (e.g. World Health Organisation) and national bodies (e.g. Health Council of the Netherlands). There are also different approaches in literature for calculating air quality guidelines for asbestos fibres, dependent on the exposure scenario under consideration. The SoBRA paper summarises a selection of internationally published air quality guidelines, together with • Respirable fibre count per unit weight of the data upon which these are based, as well as sample (this can be used calculating air quality guidelines to estimate airborne fibre using two different All models numbers in association modelling approaches from are having to with airborne soil literature. The existing particles), and extrapolate from air quality guidelines, • Dustiness tests (modified relatively high and SoBRA calculated HSL drum tests occupational exposures guidelines, are compared designed to estimate the that form the empirical alongside published releasability of asbestos ambient background evidence on which fibres and provide airborne concentrations the models are based normalised fibre to dust to understand variability concentrations akin to down to much lower in thresholds for asbestos those reported by Addison environmental in air and the potential et al 1988). practicalities of those exposures. Air quality guidelines for guidelines.

“

use in human health risk assessment

The SoBRA discussion paper on guidelines for airborne concentrations of asbestos fibres in ambient: implications for risk assessment was initially published in 2017. The paper has been prepared as an evidence base, with the aim of supporting the development of good practice for assessment of potential risks from asbestos at sites affected by land contamination. The paper sets out a series of issues that need to be resolved before a UK air quality guideline value can be proposed for asbestos but calls for the Asbestos in Soil Joint Industry Working Group to formulate a position regarding an air quality guideline for asbestos in the UK. There are a range of existing air quality

Magazine

All models are having to extrapolate from relatively high occupational exposures that form the empirical evidence on which the models are based down to much lower environmental exposures. The authors of these models differ in their interpretation of that empirical data and as a consequence there is variance in the model outputs for a given input exposure. Risk estimates from these models can vary by an order of magnitude, and published air quality guidelines by more than two orders of magnitude due to differing assumptions on the relative potency of different asbestos types. The updated paper includes risk estimates calculated using SoBRA’s workbook (beta version freely available at https://sobra.org. uk/resources/reports/) using the linear as well as the non-linear version of the Hodgson

& Darnton model (Hodgson & Darnton, 2000) as well as updates on the age adjustment calculations. The paper recommends that the linear version of the Hodgson & Darnton model for pleural mesothelioma is used to estimate risk and calculate air guideline values in conjunction with the non-linear variants for peritoneal mesothelioma and lung cancer. The tool allows users to select from the algorithm options presented in Hodgson & Darnton (2000) and enables users to perform model choice sensitivity analysis and evaluate the difference the use of alternative algorithms makes to estimated risk. It is hoped that the tool will provide a consistent basis for the calculation and reporting of risk estimates and feedback on the tool is welcomed at info@ sobra.org.uk.

References Addition, J, Davies LST, Robertson, A, Wiley, RJ (1988). The release of dispersed asbestos fibres from soil. IOM Historical Research Report TM/88/14.

Hodgson, J.T. and Darnton A (2000). The quantitative risks of mesothelioma and lung cancer in relation to asbestos exposure. Annals of Occ. Hyg., Volume 44, No 8, pages 565-601. HSE (2005). Asbestos: The analysts’ guide for sampling, analysis, and clearance procedures. Mitcheson, B (2019). Variability in asbestos analysis in soil, AGS Magazine, February 2019 https://www.ags.org.uk/magazine/agsmagazine-january-february-2019/ SCA (2017). The quantification of asbestos in soil (2017), Methods for the examination of waters and associated materials, Standing Committee of Analysts, April 2017 [Withdrawn in October 2020].

Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the work of the SoBRA asbestos subgroup, and in particular Barry Mitcheson for the development of the workbook tool, and both Barry and Simon Hay as primary authors of the risk calculations presented in the SoBRA air quality guidelines discussion paper.

June / July 2021

Photo Credit: Dominic Whitehead, Bridgeway Consulting

AGS Working Group Focus

Safety Overview Guides based on the documents which have been produced by the AECOM DOSIWG. The topics include Cable Percussion, Rotary Drilling, Dynamic Sampling and Trial Pitting.

2. Borehole Sites & Operating Regulations 1995

Roseanna Bloxham, Leader of the AGS Safety Working Group, has provided an update on the top issues the Safety Working Group discussed at their last meeting which took place virtually in May 2021.

The Safety WG have been discussing the requirements of the ‘Borehole Sites & Operating Regulations 1995’ and will be producing guidance to advise AGS members of this requirement. The Safety WG will also be producing guidance on Coal Authority permits.

1. Client Guides

3. Upcoming articles / guidance

The Safety WG are in the process of developing a set of AGS Client

Articles and guidance on different topics are currently

Magazine

being prepared by members of the Safety WG. The topics include Health & Well-being, Vacuum Excavation and Decontamination Units.

4. Existing AGS Safety Guidance There is number of AGS Safety Guidance documents which were published before 2014. It has been agreed by the group that these guidance documents need to be reviewed and amended or reviewed and withdrawn, as required. If you wish to attend AGS Safety Working Group meetings, please contact the AGS Secretariat by emailing ags@ags.org.uk.

WITH WORLD CLASS ONLINE GEOTECHNICAL TRAINING FROM EQUIPE Equipe are delighted to announce that a range of our geotechnical and health and safety courses can now be delivered as trainer-led online distance-learning during the COVID-19 enforced shutdown. This means you can stay up-to-date with your training from the comfort of your own home/oﬃce. The courses will still be delivered live by our training team and will be fully interactive, but some courses will be split into modules that will be delivered across multiple days.

Online Health and Safety Courses

Delivered in partnership with RPA Safety Services & EB Safety Solutions

IOSH Safe Supervision of Geotechnical Sites - £495 + VAT

Learn in detail how to keep yourself and your on-site operatives safe in the ﬁeld - industry SSSTS equivalent eligible for CITB Levy

MARGI - Managing & working with Asbestos Risk in Ground Investigation - £225 + VAT

Comprehensive guidance to deal with asbestos in a GI environment, including CAR 2012

Online Geotechnical Courses Delivered in partnership with Plough Geotechnical

Geotechnical Foundation Design - £250 + VAT

Comprehensive overview for geotechnical practitioners and engineers

Earthworks Design and Construction - £250 + VAT

A general overview of materials sourcing / selection for design & construction

Slope Stability Design - £250 + VAT

Comprehensive overview for geotechnical practitioners and engineers

Classroom-Based Courses

IOSH Avoiding Danger from Underground Services - £175 + VAT

In accordance with the requirements and guidance set out within HSG47

Prof. David Norbury’s Soil Description Workshop - £295 + VAT

Providing a detailed approach to soil description practices and techniques

Prof. David Norbury’s Rock Description Workshop - £295 + VAT

Providing a detailed approach to rock description practices and techniques

June / July 2021

Training Courses Equipe Training: Specialist Geotechnical Courses Equipe Training are delighted to confirm that their specialist geotechnical training courses are continuing to be delivered, both in person at our dedicated training facility just outside of Banbury, Oxfordshire., and also online via Zoom! The in-person courses will be operating with limited places to ensure social distancing. Available upcoming dates are provided below: •

29th September 2021 - Professor David Norbury’s Soil Description Workshop

•

21st July 2021 - Professor David Norbury’s Rock Description Workshop

•

9th September 2021 - Earthworks Design and Construction (Online Course)

•

14th October 2021 - Slope Stability Design (Online Course)

•

28th July 2021 - Geotechnical Foundation Design (Online Course)

Places on these courses can be booked online here, or via contacting Equipe on +44 (0)1295 670990 or info@equipegroup.com

Equipe Training: Specialist Geotechnical Heath and Safety Courses Equipe Training and their health and safety training partners RPA Safety Services and EB Safety Solutions are delighted to announce their collection of specialist health and safety courses for the geotechnical market have resumed being delivered in person, as well as being delivered online where required. These courses are approved and certified by the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) and meet the requirements of UK Health and Safety regulations for working on geotechnical and land drilling sites. Upcoming courses have limited numbers of places available in order to maintain social distancing within the classroom environment. Upcoming dates include: • 14, 15 & 16 July 2021 - IOSH Safe Supervision of Geotechnical Sites • 16th September 2021 - IOSH Avoiding Danger from Underground Services • 15th September 2021- Managing and working with Asbestos Risk in Ground Investigation (MARGI) Places on these courses can be booked online here, or via contacting Equipe on +44 (0)1295 670990 or info@equipegroup.com

Magazine

How to become a Member of the AGS AGS Members all share a commitment to quality in the geotechnical and geoenvironmental industry. This has become widely recognised by clients, governmental bodies and other associations that touch issues to do with the ground. We welcome both companies and individuals who want to be recognised for their quality of practice to join our growing membership of over 130 Members. We shape our industry, continually improve practice and collaborate on issues that affect us all; from clients, all the way through to the people who use the land and the buildings we help develop. To become a Member of the AGS, please visit http://www.ags.org.uk/about/become-a-member and submit your application online. Please note that all membership applications are reviewed by the Membership Committee 6 weeks in advance of each quarterly Executive meeting. The deadline for the next round of completed applications is Tuesday 17th August 2021 .

AGS Chemical and Legal Helplines All Members of the Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists are entitled to free chemical and contractual advice through the use of Loss Prevention Committee Members, Marquis & Lord and Beale & Co. For advice on chemical safety and best practice, Marquis & Lord will provide 30 minutes of free advice to all AGS Members. Additionally, if you’re an AGS Member and are looking for legal advice, please contact Beale & Co and quote ‘AGS Helpline’ where the first 15 minutes of legal advice will be free of charge. CHEMICAL SAFETY HELPLINE Marquis & Lord Tel: +44 (0) 121 288 2386 www.marquisandlord.com

LEGAL HELPLINE (Please quote Beale & Co ‘AGS Helpline’) Tel: +44 (0) 20 7469 0400 www.beale-law.com

Member Reporting Service for Industry Issues If you have any queries regarding AGS Data Format, there is a discussion forum on the AGS Data Format website, where queries can be posted and answered by the Data Format team. If a Member has any issues with regard to Safety, Contaminated Land, Geotechnical, Instrumentation & Monitoring or Laboratories which you think the industry should be aware of please email ags@ags.org.uk, we will then forward your email to the relevant AGS Working Group.

Disclaimer These articles are the opinions of the authors and are not intended to be a complete or comprehensive statement of the law, nor do they constitute legal or specialist advice. They are intended only to highlight current issues from date of publication that may be of interest. Neither the writer, nor the AGS, assumes any responsibility for any loss that may arise from accessing, or reliance on the material and all liability is disclaimed accordingly. Professional advice should be taken before applying the content of the articles to particular circumstances.

June / July 2021

Advertising and Rates An online advertising campaign within the AGS Magazine will help to build and increase industry awareness of your company’s profile, initiatives and offerings. The AGS can help build a package to suit your needs and budget; whether it’s a series of adverts across multiple issues, a combination of event sponsorship and advertising, or a single advertorial. How to Advertise in the AGS Magazine The AGS Magazine is a free email publication that looks at a range of topical issues, insights and concerns, whilst publishing new guidance notes, working group activities and information on upcoming industry seminars. With 6 issues each year, our subscribers include industry professionals such as practitioners, chartered specialists, senior decision makers and managing directors To receive a media pack or to discuss advertising rates, please contact Caroline Kratz on 0208 658 8212 or email ags@ags.org.uk

Adversiting Requirements

Advert Sizes and Rates

All adverts should be sent in a PDF, PNG, JPEG, TIFF, PSD (Photoshop) or EPS (Illustrator) format.

 FULL PAGE W: 210mm H: 297mm RATE: £400  HALF PAGE W: 210mm H: 145mm RATE: £250  QUARTER PAGE

COMPANY NAME ADDRESS CONTACT NUMBER EMAIL

W: 105mm H: 145mm RATE: £160

LOGO

 DIRECTORY Company name, address, contact number, email and one logo.

RATE: £50

All advertising artwork must be supplied in 114 dpi resolution.

Magazine

Artwork must be delivered to the AGS using the agreed artwork specification size listed left. Artwork should be emailed to ags@ags.org. uk no later than 10 days prior to publication.

Directory ALS Environmental

Stuart Wells Limited

Units 7 & 8 Hawarden Business Park, Manor Road, Hawarden, Flintshire, CH5 3US.

Stuart House Hargham Road Shropham, Norfolk NR17 1DT

+44 (0)1244 528 777 hawardensales@alsglobal.com https://www.alsenvironmental.co.uk

01953454540 www.stuartwells.co.uk enquiries@stuartwells.co.uk

Geotechnical Engineering Limited Centurion House, Olympus Park, Quedgeley, Gloucestershire, GL2 4NF 01452 527743 Geotech@geoeng.co.uk www.geoeng.co.uk

AGS Dates for Your Diary

Annual Conference (live event)

Net Zero Carbon (webinar)

• • •

• • • • •

• •

Date: Wednesday 22nd September Time: 9am – 4pm Price: A limited number of complimentary tickets available for AGS Member companies (T&C apply). Additional tickets cost £60 for Members and £120 for non-Members (prices ex. VAT). Location: National Motorcycle Museum, Birmingham Sponsorship: Emerald, Gold and Silver packages available

Date: Wednesday 6th October Time: 11am – 1pm Speakers: TBC Cost: Free of Charge Sponsorship: Diamond and Gold packages available

June / July 2021