We attended the Build East Sussex event on Tuesday. A much better event, lots of new participants and a much more upbeat feeling. This seems to echo the increases in work that we are seeing. Hopefully 2012 will be a much better year!
I would be interested to know whether anyone else is seeing an upturn in work?
Geo-Environmental are proud to be a part of Albion in the Communities want to work scheme. We are one of the founding companies participating in this event, attending the formal launch of the scheme on the 10th November 2011 and also the formal event on January 25th 2012 in the Houses of Parliament, hosted by Caroline Lucas MP.
Want to work is a new scheme run by Albion in the Community that has the aim of getting unemployed people a chance in experiencing a working environment, but also having an opportunity to impress an employer and perhaps gain a longer term contract or ideally a full-time role.
As part of our commitment we are looking to take on a new member of staff who will support the continued modernisation of our office. This will be a great opportunity for someone seeking work to get a start, but it is also a great opportunity for Geo-Environmental to get new and enthusiastic people involved with our business.
Want to work is just a part of our commitment towards supporting the community and developing talent. We sponsor all of a staff in getting and MSc in Contaminated Land and are currently providing placement work to students studying at Brighton University. With our support of Varndean College as well, Geo-Environmental is happy to support and nurture talent from school leavers upwards across the Sussex and Hampshire regions.
In the NCE (edition 22nd December 2012) the ICE expressed concern about the implications that the Localism Bill would have on planning and delivery of larger than local infrastructure. I have a concern about the implications on small to medium size developments as well. I fear that adding in local referendums will draw out the process longer, not fast-track it. There is a presumption that a duty to co-operate will make things quicker, I wonder whether this is optimistic.
The consultation exercises for the new Flood and Water Management Act 2010 are currently underway for the automatic adoption arrangements for new foul sewers and lateral drains and National Build Standards for gravity foul sewers and lateral drains in England, as well as proposals to implement the requirements for sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) in new and redeveloped sites in England, which are provided for in Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act (2010).
There are a couple of interesting points in proposals to the act that may need to be taken into consideration both now and in the future on new build and rennovation projects:
If anyone has any other information and views we would be very happy to hear them.
Geo-Environmental Services have set up a new sub-company specialising in consultancy and services for sustainability and renewables project.
Geo-environmental Sciences Limited will specialise in assessing the feasibility of renewables projects, ground source heat pump installations and sustainable drainage.
Check out our rapidly developing site on www.geo-sciences.net
We where recently called in to assess the extent of an oil spill at the site of a former light industrial area. An oil storage tank on the site was being decommissioned and during the removal process was damaged and created a significant spillage. When we arrived the site already posed a serious environmental hazard and the best that could be done was to recommend a way of mitigating further damage and clearing up the spillage.
The site owner and demolition crew are now being investigated by the Environment Agency with prosecutions likely.
Oil storage tanks are common in a range of light industrial areas and need to be considered a significant environmental risk, our advice would be:
Recently, with the withdrawal of subsidies on remediating disused and potentially contaminated land, or ‘Brownfield’ land as it’s often called, we have noticed a drop in the number of investigations on brownfield sites and an increase in greenfield sites.
The Environmental Protection Act, mandates that regulators should assess and make safe any contaminated land that could potentially pose risks to human health, the environment, waters and buildings. On the face of it this would seem reasonable and in an ideal world it would be desirable to investigate and clean up every potentially contaminated site. However in reality investigating and remediating sites can be complicated, confusing and expensive and it is important that a sensible investigation strategy is employed.
The dangers of making the investigations strategy too draconian is that developers and site owners can be discouraged from regenerating areas because of the costs that are associated with investigation and remediation of these sites.
For these reasons, it is important that the investigation of potentially contaminated sites be as logical, pragmatic, cost effective, accessible and transparent as possible, while still being scientifically robust.
The changes made to BS10175:2011 – Investigation of potentially contaminated sites, provide a welcome clarification on a number of areas which include:
With regards the definition of contamination it states that this is defined as the, “Presence of a substance or agent, as a result of human activity, in, on, or under land, which has the potential to cause harm or cause pollution.” It should be noted that there is no presumption in this definition that harm can result from the presence of contamination.
Although the changes in the standard align BS10175 more closely with the definition in “BS ISO 11074 Soil quality – Vocabulary” and also help to make it clear that the definition in Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 has only a narrow application, will the changes themselves make developers sufficiently confident in the process for investigating potentially contaminated sites to make them want to start developing them again?
Geo-Environmental recently became members of the AGS (Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists).
We recently won innovation funding from SEEDA for a research project with the University of Brighton, for the comparison of pXRF (portable x-ray fluorescence) versus conventional intrusive testing methods.
PXRF is used for identifying heavy metals, such as lead or cadmium.
An explanation of how we won the funding and what the project is about can be downloaded from our site: http://www.gesl.net/events.php
In answer to the question about the difficulties of taking core samples in areas with a high denisity of utilities – on the Borough Viaduct Project, which forms part of the Thameslink Scheme, we were asked to take a core sample from a service subway beneath Southwark Street, SE1 to establish its constructional makeup. The work required the co-ordination of a geophysics team and a confined access team.
The complications of working in the area included a major carriageway, a subway, utilities, the need to work in a confined environment with a risk of elevated gas levels and the need to minimise disruption to local trade within an allotted two week window.
The first stage in the project was to consult with the client and the local stakeholders and define the specific risks, produce risk assessments, methods statements and a traffic management plan tailored to the conditions on-site.
The northbound carriageway was closed and a contraflow was established. The road was excavated to expose the external surface of the subway.
A confined access team, wearing appropriate PPE and carrying escape breathing apparatus, gained internal access to the subway approximately 0.5km to the north to establish the exact position where the external surface of the subway had been exposed, internally.
Numerous vital services were fixed to the internal surface of the subway in the vicinity of the proposed core sample, leaving only a very narrow window to position the core. The preferred position for the sample was established internally by the confined access team and geophysical techniques were used to pinpoint the location externally.
On inspection it was found that the tolerance level that the core sample would have to negotiate was 25mm either side of the hole diameter, running between cabling.
A pilot hole was successfully drilled to confirm the location and finally the core sample was taken. All works were completed and reinstated within the allotted two week window, even though at one stage in the investigation the gas monitors indicated a build up of gas and the confined access team had to be withdrawn and the tunnel vented.
