Analytical Challenges and Evolving Methods
AGS PHOTOGRAPHY COMPETITION WINNERS
Announcing the winners for the 2025 edition of the annual competition
INDUSTRY ACCIDENT STATISTICS
Summary of the 2024 AGS safety report and the evolving trends
MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLANS (MMP)
How a MMP enables the safe, legal, and cost-effective reuse of site-won materials
Welcome to the latest edition of AGS Magazine, where we continue to explore, inform, and celebrate the everevolving world of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering.
In this issue, we examine the analytical challenges and evolving methods of interpreting historical soil data, delve into material management plans, and look at increasing and emerging environmental disputes.
We also present the Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Industry Accident Statistics for 2024, providing valuable insights into safety performance and highlighting the continued importance of diligence and improvement across the sector.
Looking ahead, nurturing future talent remains central to the AGS mission. This edition proudly features the Early Careers flyer and article, Securing the Future of Geoscience. Entries are also open for the AGS Early Careers Poster Competition on the
theme of “Top Five Industry Insights.” Additionally, we spotlight the Ground Forum Undergraduate Mentoring Programme - a fantastic opportunity for experienced professionals to inspire and guide the next generation of ground engineers.
Finally, we’re delighted to unveil the winners of the AGS Photography Competition 2025. Congratulations to all!
We are always on the lookout for additional, informative content for the magazine, so if you have an opinion piece, a case study, a technical article or a wider issue that you think the geotechnical and geoenvironmental public would find beneficial, please do get in touch.
We would be interested in your feedback on the magazine and our future plans. Please contact ags@ags.org.uk if you have any comments.
ABOUT THE AGS
The Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists (AGS) is a not-for-profit 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
Alex Lee, AGS Chair
Caroline Kratz, Forum Court Associates (FCA)
Katie Kennedy, FCA
Julian Lovell, Equipe Group
Calum Spires, Equipe Group
Adam Latimer, Ian Farmer Associates
Dimitris Xirouchakis, Structural Soils
Caroline Martin, Haskoning
Christos Botsialas, TRC Companies
EDITORIAL STORY
To submit an article for inclusion in the AGS Magazine, 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
Association of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Specialists Forum Court, The Alexander Centre, 15-17 Preston Street, Faversham, Kent, ME13 8NZ
ags@ags.org.uk
020 8658 8212
Alex Lee AGS Chair
Association of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Specialists
www.ags.org.uk
FEATURE
PAGE 28
COVER STORY PAGE 20
Interpreting Historical Soil Data: Analytical Challenges and Evolving Methods
The 2024 AGS safety report explores growing transparency and evolving trends, showing how better reporting strengthens industry-wide safety culture while highlighting where smaller contractors still need greater support.
AGS PHOTOGRAPHY COMPETITION 2025: CELEBRATING CREATIVITY IN GEOSCIENCE
PAGE 4
Annoucning the winners for 2025
MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLANS (MMP)
PAGE 34
How a MMP enables the safe, legal, and cost-effective reuse of site-won materials.
INCREASING AND EMERGING ENVIRONMENTAL DISPUTES
PAGE 38
Environmental risks need proactive collaboration.
MORE INSIDE
PAGE 4
News in Short: Incl. Publication Updates
PAGE 8
Peter Reading: Obituary
Remembering Pete
PAGE 18
Webinar Replay Trial Pitting
In May 2025, the AGS proudly launched its fifth Photography Competition, this year expanding the challenge with five categories to enter.
The response from our community was plentiful, with 47 entries submitted all showcasing the breadth and creativity of our industry across our five categories:
Î Technology in Geotechnical Engineering
Î Environmental and Sustainable Practices
Î People in Geosciences
Î Geotechnical Landscape
Î Safety and Risk Management
Our expert judging panel, Alex Lee (AGS Chair, HKA), Vivien Dent (AGS Past Chair, Environment Agency), Bradley Falcus (Central Alliance), Jonathan Gammon (AGS Past-Chair and Honorary member), and Steve Hodgetts (AECOM), faced the tough task of scoring submissions against originality, composition, technical quality, visual impact, and category relevance.
The overall competition winner and winner of the Technology in Geotechnical Engineering category was presented to Ian Rankin (Card Geotechnics Ltd (CGL)), who won a £100 Amazon voucher.
The category winners were Phill Case (Lankelma) for the Environmental and Sustainable Practices category, Kushal Saha (COWI UK Limited) for the Geotechnical Landscape category, Matthew Owen (John Grimes Partnership Ltd) for the People in
Geosciences category and Bronwen Smith (SLR Consulting Ltd) for the Safety and Risk Management category. Phill, Kushal, Matthew and Bronwen all won a £30 Amazon voucher.
The AGS would like to extend a huge thank you to everyone who entered. The competition continues to highlight not only the technical excellence within our field, but also the creativity and passion of those working across geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering.
OVERALL WINNING IMAGE AND WINNER OF THE TECHNOLOGY IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CATEGORY
Ian Rankin, Card Geotechnics Ltd (CGL)
Image Description: A recently installed remotely connected tilt sensor and solar panel gateway equipment installed on a remote Scottish hillside. This equipment is used to transmit the tilt sensor data to our web portal where we monitor over 50 sensors across the hillside as part of an ongoing slope stability assessment.
WINNER OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES CATEGORY
Phil Case, Lankelma
Image description: A hybrid electric tracked crawler (UK23) in the Finish winter working on a Tailings Reservoir as part of GISTM works.
WINNER OF THE GEOTECHNICAL LANDSCAPE CATEGORY
Kushal Saha, COWI UK Limited
Image description: Breathtaking, stunning visuals of a civil engineering masterpiece that reshapes transportation through the heart of the Yorkshire Dales National Park. Captured inside Blea Moor Tunnel, this photograph showcases dramatic lighting, rugged brickwork, and the captivating geometry of the tunnel’s rail-lined passage.
WINNER OF THE PEOPLE IN GEOSCIENCES CATEGORY
Matthew Owen, John Grimes Partnership Ltd
Image description: Annual rope access inspections and scaling at Sidmouth, Devon. The inspections include the removal of loose rock, debris and vegetation with penetrative roots to mitigate the risk of rockfalls onto the public promenade below, which is closed to the public for during the works.
WINNER OF THE SAFETY AND RISK MANAGEMENT CATEGORY
Bronwen Smith, SLR Consulting Ltd
Image description: The photo shows my set up with my drillers from Geotechnical Engineering Ltd at a petrol station. We have a spill kit under the rig in case of an accident, the waste water from flushing is stored downgradient of the rig, the cage is kept shut, and just out of the picture the forecourt was marked up with safe stand offs from the filling points. The driller in the picture is wearing all the correct PPE whilst writing notes in his drill log before we start works.
Making the leap from university into a career in the built environment can feel challenging and, at times, overwhelming. The Ground Forum Undergraduate Mentoring Programme (GFUMP) helps bridge that gap providing students with encouragement, guidance, and real-world insight as they take their first steps into the geotechnical and wider construction industries. The scheme reflects Ground Forum’s mission to promote the geotechnical and construction sectors as rewarding career choices, while supporting the retention and development of talent already within them.
The GFUMP was established in 2020, led by Ebenezer Adenmosun of Geofirma Consultants, following his determination to make the industry more inclusive and accessible to students from all backgrounds. What began as a small initiative within the Federation of
Piling Specialists (FPS) has since evolved into a sector-wide mentoring network, delivered under the Ground Forum umbrella, uniting professionals across geotechnical, geoenvironmental, and civil engineering disciplines.
The programme continues to champion diversity, equality, and opportunity encouraging participation from groups traditionally under-represented in the ground engineering profession, including Black, Asian and minority ethnic students, women, students from disadvantaged backgrounds, LGBTQ+ students, and students with disabilities.
Each academic year, Ground Forum matches undergraduate students in higher education with experienced mentors from across the ground engineering industry. Mentors and mentees meet regularly online or in person to discuss career aspirations, industry trends, and personal development goals.
Students also benefit from:
Î Career-focused online workshops on CV writing, presentation skills, and interview preparation;
Î Networking opportunities across the Ground Forum’s member organisations; and
Î The potential for work experience
placements with leading employers in the sector.
The 2025–26 programme will begin with a prerecorded online welcome event in November 2025, introducing mentors and mentees before their one-to-one meetings begin. All participants are encouraged to join LinkedIn to strengthen professional connections and engage with the growing GFUMP community online.
Now entering its fifth year, the GFUMP has already helped many students discover the opportunities within ground engineering. For mentors, the experience is equally rewarding offering a chance to share professional knowledge, nurture new talent, and help shape a stronger, more inclusive future for the industry.
As one early mentor described, “It’s not
about tutoring or teaching - it’s about helping students build confidence and see their place in the profession.”
The Ground Forum Undergraduate Mentoring Programme 2025–26 is now open for applications.
Î Industry professionals who would like to support the scheme as mentors or offer work experience placements are warmly encouraged to take part.
If you would like to support the scheme as a mentor or workplace, please contact Amy Hart at gforum@ground-forum.org.uk.
Together, we can help the next generation of engineers build their confidence, grow their networks, and discover the rewarding opportunities our industry has to offer.
The AGS is sad to report the passing of industry stalward, Peter Reading.
Peter, or Pete as he was also known, was a pillar of wisdom within the ground investigation community and will be sorely missed by many.
Peter started work in 1970 as a technician in the soil mechanics laboratory of Cementation. He quickly worked his way up to the office, supporting engineers as a correlator and undertaking hand calculations for laboratory test results. During this period, under the guidance of Professor Bromhead at Kingston Technical College (now Kingston University), Pete became involved in the use of computers for the analysis of geotechnical results, including results of oedometer and effective stress tests.
Peter then joined Terrasearch (the geotechnical section of Taylor Woodrow), where he gained
experience in piling, ground anchors and sheet piling. In the early 1980s Pete helped set up the first real-time visualisation and data capture logging system for effective stress testing.
Pete graduated with a BA in Earth Sciences and Mathematics from the Open University in 1984 and gained a Post Graduate Diploma in Geotechnics from the University of Surrey in 1990.
Following the closure of Terrasearch in 1992, Peter moved on to work for Exploration Associates as a Principal Engineer (which then merged with Soil Mechanics in 1997, which then
became part of ESG, before finally becoming part of Socotec in 2017) and worked his way up to Associate Director. As Associate Director Peter was responsible for southern operations and oversaw three offices. It is perhaps during this phase of his career that many reading this article would come to know and respect Pete for his knowledge and understanding of all aspects of ground investigation works.
With a passion for sharing knowledge and good practice, in 2008 Pete set up Equipe Training Ltd and in 2014 took a part-time lectureship at Brunel University. In 2014 Pete set up Peter Reading Geotechnical Consulting. Continuing his desire to undertake geotechnical research to share knowledge and inspire the next generation, in 2020 he became a Senior Teaching Fellow and then a Visiting Reader at the University of Portsmouth. More recently, Pete had been delivering geotechnical courses for the Geological Society of London.
During his long and dedicated career in geotechnical engineering, Peter inspired many and achieved much. Pete was a Chartered Geologist, Chartered Scientist, and in 2015 gained Adviser status with the UK register of Ground Engineering Professionals. During his 50+years of service, he also found time to co-author a number of technical papers, serve on the BGA committee (2008 to 2022), was a judge for the Ground Engineering Awards, helped set up the Geotechnica trade show and was involved in the Geotechnical Academy. In 2024 Pete was a worthy recipient of the British Drilling Association (BDA) Lifetime Contribution
Award.
Peter was also a staunch supporter of the AGS and served on its Geotechnical Working Group (GWG) since 2018. Peter was the ‘go to guy’ within the AGS GWG for all matters ground investigation related and always gave prompt, useful and insightful advice. He contributed significantly to many of the AGS GWG's initiatives and helped produce a range of guidance and webinars, most notably the webinar ‘The Standard Penetration Test: Its Origin, Evolution and Future’. In 2022 Pete was given the AGS Geotechnical Working Group Award in recognition of his considerable efforts to improve our industry.
Most recently, Pete co-authored (with Miles Martin of Socotec UK) The ICE Handbook of Ground Investigation: Geotechnical Field Activities and Laboratory Testing, which was published in July 2025. At the time of his passing, Pete was leading the production of an AGS guidance document on sonic drilling.
The following quote from Pete's colleagues at Socotec UK perhaps best summarises Pete's standing in our community.
‘His dedication to getting ground investigation right shaped the careers of many engineers across our business. Pete was more than a colleague—he was a mentor, a trusted advisor, and a friend. His warmth, enthusiasm, and generosity will be deeply missed by all who had the privilege to work with him’.
The top three downloaded AGS publications in last month:
1. AGS Client Guide for Ground Investigation Activities – Trial Pitting
2. Safety Guidance - Classification of Potentially Contaminated Sites for Intrusive Investigation Activities
3. AGS Guidance on Waste Classification for Soils – A Practitioners Guide
To download the publications for free; click here.
On Wednesday 17th September at the CLR event at the Birmingham NEC, professionals from across the land condition sector gathered to celebrate a milestone achievement: the 25th anniversary of the Specialists in Land Condition (SiLC) Register. The event brought together current and aspiring SiLC registrants, industry leaders, and supporters to reflect on the past quarter-century, celebrate achievements, and look ahead to the future of land condition expertise.
SiLC was created to provide a professional register for experienced practitioners across the land condition sector. Over the years, SiLC has become a benchmark of professional competence, promoting consistency, transparency, and high standards in the assessment of land condition.
From its earliest days, SiLC has sought to bridge gaps between disciplines and support the sustainable redevelopment of land. Its registrants have played key roles in raising awareness on issues that impact brownfield regeneration, shaping national policy, advancing technical practice, and ensuring that brownfield land is brought back into safe and beneficial use.
The 25th anniversary event was both a celebration and a reflection. Attendees enjoyed
keynote presentation from Louise Beale (Chair of the SiLC PTP) that highlighted SiLCs journey, the changing landscape of the profession, and the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.
Attendees saw current SiLC Board representatives, members of the PTP and supporting professional bodies as well as new professionals, each offering unique perspectives on how SiLC has influenced their careers and the wider industry. This networking session brought together generations of professionals, demonstrating the strong sense of community that has grown around the Register.
A particular highlight was the recognition of the many volunteers who have been instrumental in SiLCs development, acknowledging their dedication, foresight, and commitment to upholding professional excellence.
The success of this milestone event would not have been possible without the generous support of our sponsors Unyte Group, Jackson Remediation and Biogenie Remediation UK LTD. Their commitment not only made the celebration possible but also reflects their shared belief in the value of professional standards and collaboration across the sector. SiLC is deeply grateful for their contribution in helping to mark this important chapter in our history.
As the event made clear, SiLCs mission remains
as vital today as it was 25 years ago. With increasing emphasis on sustainability, climate resilience, and the circular economy, the role of competent, trusted professionals in assessing and managing land condition has never been more critical.
The next chapter for SiLC will involve strengthening its links with other professional bodies, continuing to champion best practice, and encouraging the next generation of professionals to step forward. Initiatives such as the SiLC Affiliate Scheme and the SiLC Employers Scheme are ensuring that knowledge and expertise are passed on.
The 25th anniversary of SiLC is not only a celebration of the past but also a commitment to the future. It is a recognition that professional standards, collaboration, and innovation are essential to meeting the environmental and social challenges of land reuse and regeneration.
As the Register enters its next quartercentury, one thing is clear: SiLC remains a vital force in driving professional excellence and safeguarding the future of land condition practice.
For more information on SiLC please do visit the website www.silc.org.uk or email silc@silc. org.uk
CONE PENETRATION TESTING (CPT)
Seismic, Shear Vane, Video Cone, Gamma Cone, Magnetometer, MOSTAP Sampling
PRESSUREMETER TESTING
Self Boring Pressuremeters (SBPs), High Pressure Dilatometers (HPDs), Ménard Pressuremeter tests, Cone Pressuremeter, Goodman Jack Borehole Probe
ENVIRONMENTAL
Membrane Interface Probe (MIP), Hydraulic Profiling Tool (HPT), WASTAP, Optical Image Profiler (OIP)
MARINE RAIL RESTRICTED ACCESS
TAILINGS STORAGE FACILITIES PETROGRAPHY ANALYSIS
SAMPLE AND CORE LOGGING
UK & WORLDWIDE
Article contributed by Bradley Falcus (Principal Administrator, Central Alliance)
We recently conducted a comprehensive survey of our membership to gain insights into the future direction of the AGS and to identify the key risks and challenges facing our industry. One recurring theme was the concern over the skills shortage and the sharp decline in geoscience qualifications at both Further and Higher Education levels.
This trend poses a significant threat to the long-term sustainability of our sector. Without a steady pipeline of qualified geoscientists, we risk falling behind adjacent disciplines such as Civil Engineering and Materials Science.
To address this, we have launched a new initiative designed to inspire the next
generation. The AGS Early Careers Flyer introduces students—both in the UK and internationally—to the diverse and rewarding career opportunities within geoscience. It highlights the variety of roles available and encourages early engagement with the AGS and other professional bodies, ideally before students make critical decisions about their academic and career pathways.
We know many organisations already take part in careers events to promote their businesses. Now we are asking our members to go one step further: help us raise awareness of geoscience as a profession by distributing the AGS Early Careers Flyer at these events. Together, we can amplify our reach and spark interest among students who may not yet have considered this field.
The word most commonly used to describe the AGS in our survey was “collaborative.” By working collectively, we can ensure geoscience remains a vibrant, competitive, and forwardlooking profession.
Let’s continue to build on that spirit of collaboration to drive meaningful change and secure a strong future for our industry.
Have you ever considered a career in the Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental sector?
There are many opportunities and a wide variety of career paths to choose from, including:
You can explore more career opportunities on the respective institute and society websites using the following QR code:
We’re delighted to announce the AGS Annual Conference will return to One Great George Street, London, on Thursday 19th March 2026.
Chaired by Alex Lee (AGS Chair and Partner at HKA), this full day, CPD conference will feature a series of expert speakers from across the geotechnical and geoenvironmental sector, including Sarah Cook (Onyxgeo), Tony Putsman (Xenophon Project Services) and Neda Mokaram (Geolabs). All speakers will provide presentations on the theme, challenges in geosciences.
The conference will also include a panel discussion on the topic, The Future of Geoscience: Inspiring and Sustaining Early Career Professionals which will be chaired by Professor Iain Stewart (Plymouth University). Other panel members confirmed to date include Dr Nick Koor (Koor Associates), Ian Carr (Collyer's) and Oliver Savill (AtkinsRéalis).
The event will conclude with a networking drinks and canapé reception in the Great Hall.
Further information on the event including speaker presentations will be announced in due course.
This event is sponsored by Soil Engineering, Brimstone, Groundsure, BAM Ritchies, In Situ Site Investigation, Geosense, Van Walt, Normec i2 Analytical, SOCOTEC, Eijkelkamp Fraste UK, AFITEXINOV UK, Dr Sauer and Partners, Equipe, Igne, Huesker, Landmark and Soil Safe.
AGS Member companies, Affiliate Members and Honorary Members are entitled to a limited number of complimentary tickets, as part of their membership subscription. Additional tickets for the Annual Conference are priced at £135 for AGS Members, and £210 for NonMembers. Prices exclude VAT.
For full ticket information including prices and how to register please click HERE.
We have one sponsorship package remaining for or both Members and non-Members of the AGS which is available with a 35% off discount. For full details and full benefits please click HERE.
SPONSORED BY
The AGS Early Careers Poster Competition is back for a third year and this time, we want to hear your top five takeaways since joining the geoscience industry.
Whether you work on site, in the office or somewhere in between, we’d like you to design an eye-catching poster which showcases your top five industry insights that others should know about. These learnings could be focused on:
Site-based experiences
Safety challenges
Office or project management know-how
Lessons from training, meetings or mentoring
Networking and industry engagement
Unexpected discoveries
Your poster should be bold and colourful and aim to inspire both industry professionals and those entering the industry.
The winner will receive a £100 Amazon Voucher, free entry to the AGS Annual Conference on 19th March 2026 in London and have an interview regarding their winning entry published in AGS Magazine which reaches over 7,600 industry professionals six times a year. Ten runners up will win free entry into the Annual Conference. All posters submitted will be displayed at the Annual Conference.
To enter, email your A4 poster alongside your full name and company to ags@ags.org.uk before Friday 30th January.
Join us at the Thinktank Birmingham Science Museum on Thursday 4th December for a full-day CPD event dedicated to the future of geotechnical and geoenvironmental data. The AGS Data Conference will bring together industry leaders, innovators, and data specialists to explore the latest developments and opportunities shaping our sector.
Chaired by Jackie Bland (Principal Ground Investigation Data Manager at Structural Soils & Leader of the AGS Data Management Working Group), the programme will feature 23 expert speakers across four dynamic sessions covering the advancements in Electronic Transfer of Data—highlighting what’s working, what’s changing, and what’s next for our industry.
Whether you're an engineering geologist, geotechnical engineer, geoenvironmental specialist or data scientist, this event will provide industry expert presentations from the AGS Data Management Working Group (DMWG) including an overview of the refinements to the AGS4 data dictionary, the release of AGS 4.2, AGSi, AGS Piling and an outline of the proposed
AGS 5.
Presented by Mark Bevan, (Associate Director at Structural Soils), Phil Child, (Senior Technical Solutions Specialist at Seequent), Paul Chaplin, (Data Manager (Ground and Water) at WSP) and Leon Warrington, (Associate Hydrogeologist at Stantec).
Hear about the progress made by the DMWG including successes, setbacks, and the restructuring of AGS data practices. In this session delegates can:
Î Hear insights from focus groups across key structural areas
Î Learn what’s working (and what’s not) from the experts shaping the standards
Î Be inspired to get involved – your input matters
Presented by Conrad Stewart, (Data Manager at Harrison Group Environmental), David Farmer, (Senior Geotechnical Engineer at Arup), Phil Wade, (Managing Director at Datgel), Romain Arnould, (Solution Owner at Fugro), Tom Smith, (Senior Geotechnical Engineer at Ørsted), Jonty White, (Lead Geotechnical Engineer at Ørsted), Neil Chadwick, (Director at Digital Geotechnical), Jerome Chamfray, (Chief Geo-digital Engineer at Jacobs), Melody Wareing, (Technical Team Leader at SOCOTEC) and Jono Wright, (Senior Engineering Manager at Strata Geotechnics).
Explore the near-future roadmap of AGS data.
This session will include updates on:
Î AGS 4.2 including segments on In Situ Testing and Advanced Geotechnical Laboratory Testing.
Î AGSi: the evolving digital interface
Î AGS Piling: sector-specific progress and integration
Presented by Craig Brown, (Principal Data Manager at BAM – Ground Engineering), Tony Daly, (Managing Director at Amageo), Jonny Neville, (Principal Design Manager at Mott MacDonald), Steve Walthall, (Retired Engineering Geologist) and Edd Lewis, (Data Standards Lead at the British Geological Survey).
Be part of shaping what comes next with the launch of AGS 5:
Î What AGS 5 aims to achieve
Î What's already underway, and what's still to be included
Î A look at international perspectives: collaboration and data exchange with Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore and more
Î Packaging and preparing AGS data for realworld application
Chaired by Jackie Bland, (AGS Data Management Working Group Leader and Principal Ground Investigation Data Manager at
Structural Soils). Panel members include Vicky Corcoran, (Principal Engineering Geologist at AtkinsRéalis), Craig Brown, (Senior Data Manager at BAM – Ground Engineering), Simon Miles, (Chief Geotechnical Engineer at AtkinsReális), Mark Bevan, (Associate Director at Structural Soils), Yiyan Liu, (Geotechnical Data Manager at High Speed Two (HS2))
Delegates can also look forward to a lively panel discussion, where Vicky, Craig, Simon, Mark and Yiyan from the AGS Data Management Working Group will share insights on the challenges and opportunities in electronic data. The session will explore real-world applications, common hurdles, and future developments, with multiple perspectives from across the sector. This interactive Q&A will give delegates the chance to put their own questions directly to the panel.
Whether you are looking to get involved in the next generation of the format or find out more about AGS Electronic Transfer of Data, this event can help future-proof your organisation.
This event is sponsored by SoilCloud, SOCOTEC, Equipe Group, BAM Ritchies, Groundsure, Eijkelkamp Fraste UK, Seequent, Geolabs and Landmark Geodata.
AGS member company tickets are priced at the reduced rate of £150. Non-members may attend the conference for £250. Prices exclude VAT.
To register and for further information please click HERE.
SPONSORED BY
On Wednesday 24th September 2025, the AGS hosted a webinar titled Trial Pitting; Controlling the Risks.
Over 460 people registered for the event which was chaired by Liz Withington (Principal Engineering Geologist at CC Ground Investigations), Leader of the AGS Safety Working Group. The webinar also featured expert presentations from Will Capps (Technical Manager at Lucion Delta-Simons), Marcus Boneham (Associate Geotechnical Engineer at AtkinsRéalis), and Jamie Graham (PreConstruction Manager at Aarsleff Ground Engineering).
Jamie Graham's presentation focused on the practical execution of trial pitting activities, addressing key safety, environmental, and project-related risks. He shared best practices from the perspective of a Main Contractor, emphasising early engagement with clients, designers, and utility providers, the importance of appointing experienced subcontractors with strong track records, conducting daily briefings focused on ground risks, and digital recordings of findings.
Marcus Boneham offered insights from a
designer's viewpoint, outlining why trial pitting is used, how to effectively manage associated risks, and ways to improve trial pit safety.
Will Capps looked at trial pitting from the perspective of a GI contractor. He explored the key UK guidance available on trial pitting, discussed risk mitigation strategies, and identified the various parties that should be considered during planning and execution.
The webinar concluded with an engaging Q&A session, where speakers addressed a range of questions submitted by attendees.
The replay of this webinar is available free of charge to AGS members and £50 + VAT for nonmembers. To access the recording and view presentation synopsises, please click here.
Tailored geotechnical courses delivered on your schedule. Designed to keep your team sharp while minimizing downtime and expenses. Regular open courses delivered from our dedicated training facility, or bespoke courses delivered at your site or offices. Whenever, wherever - Equipe can fulfill your training needs.
Health and Safety Courses
Delivered in partnership with RPA Safety Services
IOSH Safe Supervision of Geotechnical Sites (3 Days)
Learn in detail how to keep yourself and your on-site operatives safe in the fieldthe geotechnical industry’s SSSTS equivalent
IOSH Avoiding Danger from Underground Services
In accordance with the requirements and guidance set out within HSG47
Safe Working on Geotechnical Sites
The ultimate one-day introduction to safety on geotechnical projects
Health and Safety Courses
- Managing & working with Asbestos Risk in Ground Investigation
comprehensive
Geotechnical Courses
Prof. David Norbury’s Soil Description Workshop
Providing a detailed approach to soil description practices and techniques
Prof. David Norbury’s Rock Description Workshop
Providing a detailed approach to rock description practices and techniques
Prof. David Norbury’s Chalk Description Workshop
Providing a detailed approach to chalk description practices and techniques
Understanding & Scheduling Geotechnical Laboratory Tests
Detailed overview of processes involved in efficiently scheduling Geotechnical Laboratory Testing
Mastering the AGS Data Format
Get to grips with common and complex data issues
Earthworks Design and Construction
Slope
Article contributed by Barry Mitcheson (WSP) and Geraint Williams (HKA Global)
For an increasing number of sites, previous site investigation data can provide information on the ground conditions, potential contamination and liability. In addition to considering how a site has changed and how the contamination may have moved (e.g. through leaching) or transformed (e.g. by biodegradation), it is essential to understand the limitations of the original data itself. This article considers the
changes in practices for soil chemical data in particular laboratory analysis, as shown in Figure 1.
Before 2003, ISO/IEC 17025 (introduced in 1999, replacing ISO Guide 25) required laboratories to follow a written methodology for testing and calibration (typically based on British or international standards). There was no UK performance standard for soil analysis. While Proficiency Testing (PT) schemes, such as CONTEST, were in place for the interlaboratory comparison of soil data, not all laboratories participated. There was thus no clear way to determine the quality of laboratory results.
In 2003, the Environment Agency’s (EA) Monitoring Certification Scheme (MCERTS) was introduced. MCERTS builds on ISO/IEC 17025 by establishing additional technical requirements that laboratories are required to meet.
This was a significant change that encouraged laboratories to establish performance characteristics over the next few years to ensure analytical procedures were suitable for use, but it should be noted, does not guarantee consistency between different laboratories. MCERTS is applicable where laboratory results are generated and submitted to the EA for regulatory purposes. MCERTS was developed and implemented by the Environment Agency, in collaboration with the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS), to deliver quality environmental measurements.
“ This was a significant change that encouraged laboratories to establish performance characteristics over the next few years to ensure analytical procedures were suitable for use...
instance, some laboratories sieve and remove material above 2mm, some remove material above 10mm, and some crush the whole sample. Analysing materials of different sizes can affect the results. This remains a source of uncertainty when comparing results. Previous AGS magazine articles (On Stoney Ground Re-Visited 2020) have highlighted the need to thoroughly review the procedures for preparation and extraction when comparing data from two laboratories.
Analysis Procedures that are Broadly Unchanged Concerning the analytical methods themselves, analysis for inorganics has not changed significantly:
Î Metals were in the past generally analysed by Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) coupled with optical emission spectroscopy, mass spectrometry or by atomic fluorescence
Sampling methods for soil bulk testing have been broadly unchanged. However, one material change relates to losses of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) from soils during sampling. It is now recognised that the conventional bulk sampling method can result in 90% to 99% loss of VOCs prior to laboratory analysis (Nathanail 2021). While VOC losses through volatilisation and biodegradation have been known to occur for a long time, adoption of processes to improve sampling, as detailed in BS 10176, has only recently been introduced to the UK.
A key reason for a difference between laboratories is sample preparation. For
Î Colourimetry was used for hexavalent chromium, ammonium and cyanide
Î Electrochemical probes used for pH Recently, laboratories are moving towards using ion chromatography (IC) methods to determine hexavalent chromium. The use of IC provides better detection limits and the method is less susceptible to interference. For organics, analytical techniques for some substances have not changed substantially since the early 2000s. This applies to VOCs and Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOC) using Gas Chromatography with Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS). The 16 speciated Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) were carried out using GC-MS or Gas Chromatography with Flame Ionisation Detection (GC-FID). The latter has fallen
out of favour as it struggles to distinguish between benzo(b)fluoranthene and benzo(k) fluoranthene. Such data should be treated with caution given the limitations of GC-FID analysis for specific PAHs.
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, only crude screening methods for organics were used. These methods were initially named after the solvent (e.g. Toluene extractable material (TEM)) but as toluene was phased out laboratories used a solvent mixture to mimic the polarity of toluene, and the test became known as solvent extractable material (SEM). This analysis would include heavier organics that are typically found in the SVOCs and TPH suites. Their lack of specificity makes interpretation of the results extremely difficult. Some refinements to this analysis involved the use of thin layer chromatography (TLC) combined with an FID to split the solvent extract into three fractions: nonpolar (mineral oil), semipolar (aromatics) and polar organics (heteronuclear nitrogen, sulphur and oxygen-containing organics (NSO) and resins including asphaltenes).
Early total methods for analysis of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) were non-selective. Although the techniques used have not changed significantly, there has been a change in what is measured and reported, for example, the concentration of specific “Arochlor” mixtures. Here, Arochlor refers to a common trade
name for PCBs. PCB mixtures were named according to their chlorine content, Arochlor 1254 containing 54% chlorine by weight, and Arochlor 1260 containing 60%.
Laboratories moved towards measuring individual PCB compounds (or “congeners”) including suites of dioxin-like PCBs (World Health Organisation 12 PCBs) typically used in Human Health Risk Assessment. It should be noted these PCBs are not the most commonly occurring and only account for approximately less than 4% of the congeners produced. The PCB 7 suite originated from the list of PCBs by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). It later became a requirement for Waste Acceptance Criteria testing and therefore widely adopted by all labs. These 7 PCBs also only make up approximately 20% by weight of commercial mixtures. More recently, High Resolution Mass Spectrometry (HRMS) methods allow for lower detection limits in comparison to GC-MS and are able to better resolve PCBs that are structurally similar.
“ Prior to the introduction of the Control of Asbestos Regulations (CAR) in 2012, analysis of asbestos in soil was conducted as a visual screen. In particular, screens for asbestos were focused on identifying bulk asbestos within the soil, rather than small fragments and free fibres.
Prior to the introduction of the Control of Asbestos Regulations (CAR) in 2012, analysis of asbestos in soil was conducted as a visual screen. In particular, screens for asbestos were focused on identifying bulk asbestos within the soil, rather than small fragments and free fibres. The analysis was thus not very sensitive. Between 2012 and 2014, UKAS was to require laboratories to move towards a more sensitive method to include looking for loose fibres
using microscopy and for even smaller fibres using Phase Contrast Optical Microscopy (PCOM). It is not uncommon for soil screened for asbestos before 2012 to now be shown to contain asbestos. Participation in PT schemes such as Asbestos in Soils Scheme (AISS), Asbestos in Materials Scheme (AIMS) and RICE (fibre counting) allows laboratories to monitor and improve the quality of their measurement results in terms of accuracy and comparability.
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)
The analysis for TPH has changed over time. In 1998, in the US, the TPH Criteria Working Group (TPH CWG) developed a method for separating hydrocarbons into aromatic and aliphatic fractions, and then subdividing these into carbon bands. This TPH CWG approach was then modified for the UK (EA, 2005) and extended to consider the work of the American Petroleum Institute (API) on heavier hydrocarbon fractions. The intention has been to ensure standardisation when assessing TPH risk in UK soils.
Until recently, TPH analysis was carried out using GC-FID. This analysis provided:
Î Light hydrocarbons (sometimes called petrol or gasoline range organics (PRO or GRO) or Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons (VPH)). The carbon range varied but was typically C5-C12 or C5-C10 and included benzene, toluene, xylene and ethyl benzene (BTEX).
Î Hydrocarbons in the semi-volatile organic range variously referred to as EPH Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (EPH) or Diesel Range Organics (DRO). Again, the carbon range varied but may start as low as C8 or C10 and rise to C44.
The removal of indigenous non-hydrocarbon polar organic compounds (such as humic acids) commonly found in soils involves the use of clean-up techniques. These compounds are retained on the column and not eluted with the aliphatic or aromatic component fractions. This ensured a broadly similar procedure for clean-up between most of the laboratories. More recently, laboratories have looked toward using Comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography (GCxGC-FID) for analysis of TPH. GCxGC analysis employs two chromatography columns with different separation mechanisms. The conventional boiling point separation is maintained in the first dimension while aliphatics and aromatics are separated in the second dimension in a single run. Using GCxGC-FID, classes of hydrocarbons are ordered in well-defined
• Professional development
• Networking and events
• Chartership
• Resources and materials
bands. Biogenic compounds elute in a specific area of the chromatogram. Laboratories have each developed methods to “clean-up” the sample using software to exclude this area from the reported TPH results. This can lead to variation and inconsistency particularly where labs are not carrying out any form of clean-up.
Methods to assess the proportion of metals available for absorption into the body following ingestion are known as a metal’s oral Bioaccessibility. A Physiological Based Extraction Test (PBET) was first developed in 1998 by the British Geological Survey (BGS), which involved simulating the leaching of a solid matrix in the stomach and small intestine. For lead, it was found that only the stomach phase extraction was required to assess oral bioaccessibility and the Simplified Bioaccessibility Extraction Test (SBET) was developed with this single stage. With the introduction of the Contaminated Land Exposure Model (CLEA) model in 2003, these methods became a popular way to further assess the risks from metals (particularly lead and arsenic) for those carrying out detailed quantitative risk assessments. In 2011, a pan-European group, the “Bioaccessibility Research Group of Europe “ (BARGE), carried out an inter-laboratory trial of a proposed harmonised in vitro physiologically based ingestion bioaccessibility procedure for soils, called the Unified BARGE Method (UBM). The UBM method now includes an initial saliva phase and simulated stomach and intestine compartments. BS ISO 17924 is based on the UBM method. It has in-vivo validation for arsenic, cadmium and lead. More recent methods (BS ISO 8259) have been
developed or are currently in the drafting stages (BS ISO 7303).
There are several tests available that have been developed for soil ingestion to estimate bioaccessibility. Preference in selection should be given to those that have in-vivo validation data for specific contaminants of concern.
“ There are several tests available that have been developed for soil ingestion to estimate bioaccessibility. Preference in selection should be given to those that have invivo validation data for specific contaminants of concern.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have been the focus of much attention in recent years. However, analysis of these substances in the UK was not commonplace until after the Buncefield fire in 2005. Testing initially focused on perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) before more extensive suites were established over time. PFAS might have been present on many sites previously investigated but analysis was either not carried out or only a limited PFAS analytical suite will have been used.
Conventional PFAS analysis is carried out using liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Only a relatively small fraction of known PFAS can been measured via targeted chemical analysis and many more PFAS are likely to occur in the environment than are routinely analysed. Nor does this approach account for precursors that can transform over time to more regulated perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs). Non-target methods such as Total Oxidisable Precursor Assay (TOP Assay), Combustion Ion Chromatography (CIC) and High Resolution Mass Spectrometry (HRMS) can assist in understanding the fluorine mass balance (to
determine whether targeted methods account for the mass of PFAS).
As knowledge has improved about exposure and toxicological of contaminants so have testing methods needed to evolve. Technological advancements have led to lower detection limits, increased suites of analytes and use of automation as well as analysis of more complex matrices. Interpretation of historic lab analysis requires careful review and understanding of the limitations of previous methods and practices. Even current suites will require addition site-specific testing should failures be observed or identified during due diligence.
Î ISO/CD 7303, Simplified method for oral bioaccessibility of metal(loid)s in soils
Î BS ISO 8529, Soil quality – Bioaccessibility of organic and inorganic pollutants from contaminated soil and soil-like material
Î BS EN ISO/IEC 17025, General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories
Î BS ISO 17924, Soil quality – Assessment of human exposure from ingestion of soil and soil material – Procedure for the estimation of the human bioaccessibility/ bioavailability of metals in soil
Î BS 10176, Taking soil samples for determination of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) – Specification
Î ENVIRONMENT AGENCY. The UK approach for evaluating human health risks frompetroleum hydrocarbons in soils. Science Report – P5-080/TR3. Bristol: EnvironmentAgency, 2005
Î ENVIRONMENT AGENCY. Performance standard for laboratories undertaking chemical testing of soil. Bristol: Environment Agency, 2023
Î ENVIRONMENT AGENCY. Performance standard for organisations undertaking sampling and chemical testing of water. Bristol: Environment Agency, 2024
Î NATHANAIL P. Taking Soil Samples for the Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds. AGS Magazine 2021
Î PLIMMER, M. On Stoney Ground Re-Visited. AGS Magazine 2020
Î Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons Criteria Working Group (TPHCWG) Series: Volume 1: Analysis of Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Environmental Media (TPHCWG, 1998a) Amherst, MA: Amherst Scientific Publishers.
Î WRAGG, J., CAVE, M., TAYLOR, H., BASTA, N., BRANDON, E., CASTEEL, S.,
Î GRON, C., OOMEN, A., REIMER, K., TACK, K. and VAN DE WIELE, T. An inter- laboratory trial of the unified BARGE bioaccessibility method for arsenic, cadmium and lead in soil. Science of the Total Environment, 2011; 409 (19): 4016–4030.
Article contributed by Rachael Parry TechIOSH CMgr MCMI,(Operations Support Manager, Geotechnical Engineering Ltd)
Continued data sharing with the AGS into 2024 not only reinforces the importance of transparency but also enhances the industry’s shared understanding of safety performance. As more organisations participate, the resulting datasets will provide a valuable basis for collaboration across the geotechnical and geoenvironmental sectors, empowering targeted interventions and informed decision-making. This growing culture of reporting helps uncover hidden risks and promotes shared accountability. By embracing safety as a collective priority, the industry can progress beyond compliance, cultivating a proactive, learning-driven environment where wellbeing is central to operational excellence.
The data collected by the AGS highlights key safety patterns. Some entities show notably high volumes of hazard observations, which may reflect either strong reporting mechanisms or areas of elevated risk. Consistently high levels of minor injuries, near misses, and hazard reports in certain areas suggest an increased exposure to risk or a
robust internal reporting culture. Meanwhile, spikes in near misses and minor injuries elsewhere point to opportunities for focused safety interventions. On the opposite end, some reporting environments show minimal incidents across all categories. This could indicate genuinely low-risk conditions or potential gaps in reporting behaviour.
To facilitate the evaluation against HSE statistics and ensure consistency with industry standards as reflected in last year's published data, the same two accident incident rate metrics have been applied in calculating the 2024 figures;
Accident Incident Rate (AIR) – (number of RIDDOR reportable accidents / average workforce headcount) x 100,000.
Accident Frequency Rate (AFR) – (total number of harm accidents / total number of hours worked) x 1,000,000.
An analysis of Industry AIR across varying contractor sizes from 2021 to 2024 reveals critical insights into workplace safety practices and reporting behaviours. Small contractors, employing 1 to 10 individuals, recorded zero RIDDOR Reportable incidents throughout the four-year period. It is worth noting that the AIR calculation does not include the single fatality involving one of the smaller
contractors. Medium-sized firms (11 to 100 employees) displayed striking volatility, with sharp peaks in 2021 and 2023 but no reported data in 2022 or 2024. This inconsistency raises questions about engagement levels and potential systemic gaps. Large contractors (101 to 1,000 employees) maintained a steady presence, contributing moderate incident rates year after year and suggesting more robust reporting mechanisms.
“ While medium contractors registered the highest average incident rate across the period, the persistent silence from smaller firms points to an urgent need for improved safety visibility and inclusive reporting practices.
Very large contractors (1,000+ employees) exhibited a gradual increase, starting from low and rising incrementally, possibly indicating progress in internal accountability. While medium contractors registered the highest average incident rate across the period, the persistent silence from smaller firms points to an urgent need for improved safety visibility and inclusive reporting practices.
From 2021 to 2024, Industry AFR’s varied significantly across contractor sizes. Mediumsized contractors (11 to 100 employees) consistently recorded the highest rates, averaging 40.02, with a peak of 44.78 in 2022. Large contractors (101 to 1,000 employees) maintained the lowest and most stable rates across all years, averaging just 9.71, suggesting stronger safety systems or controls. Very large contractors (over 1,000 employees) showed irregular performance, spiking in 2022 before stabilising, while small contractors (1 to 10 employees) exhibited inconsistent reporting, with a surprising drop to zero in 2023 and a fouryear average of 18.15. These trends highlight a need to strengthen safety practices among medium-sized firms and improve support for both very small and very large organisations.
At the same time, a 41% rise in reported minor injuries suggests that safety interventions are gaining traction and that reporting practices have improved significantly. Together, these shifts point to meaningful progress in both the implementation and documentation of workplace safety measures.
“ There is a clear opportunity to strengthen safety culture and improve reporting systems across the sector.
That being said, only 68.57% of the AGS survey data responded “Yes” to capturing both positive and negative observations or hazard spots, suggesting just two-thirds of organisations actively engage in monitoring and recording workplace safety behaviours and conditions.
When comparing the AIR to the AFR for 2024, the most striking takeaway from the visual data is the 76% marked decline in the
31.43% of organisations either do not capture this type of data or have failed to confirm they do, and only 27% of small companies have responded “Yes”. These figures also reinforce the need for tailored support for very small companies and self-employed businesses, where current engagement appears especially limited.
Non-Fatal Workplace Injuries - In the latest reporting year, 4,050 non-fatal injuries to employees in the construction industry were documented by the HSE, with 2,518 classified as reportable under RIDDOR. These injuries typically involve incidents that result in hospitalisation for more than 24 hours or an inability to work for seven consecutive days. Slips, trips, or falls emerged as the most common cause, accounting for 972 cases (24% of all non-fatal injuries) and contributing to 20% of reportable incidents. Falls from height followed closely with 807 cases (20%), responsible for 12% of all reportable injuries. Manual handling, lifting, or carrying led to 742 injuries (18%) and represented the largest single contributor to over-7-day absences (25%).
While the recorded fatality count across the AGS organisations remains low, with only one fatality documented, the prevalence of minor injuries, near misses, and hazard observations indicates persistent underlying risks in workplace environments. Several organisations show zero or near-zero reporting across all safety categories, raising flags around potential underreporting, disengaged safety cultures, or gaps in audit structures.
“ Our own analysis of the Accident Incident Rate (AIR) data highlights a pressing concern: smaller companies, often comprised of selfemployed individuals, show significantly weaker safety outcomes.
Other notable categories included injuries caused by moving objects (481 cases, 12%) and contact with machinery (261 cases, 6%), both associated with extended recovery periods.
Fatal Workplace Injuries - Recent HSE data on fatal workplace injuries reveals enduring safety challenges in high-risk sectors, particularly among self-employed workers. Of the 51 recorded fatalities, 28 involved self-employed individuals. Falls from height were the most frequent cause, accounting for 31 fatalities, with nearly two-thirds affecting those who work independently. Other significant risks included being struck by moving vehicles and incidents involving collapse or overturning of structures, both disproportionately impacting the selfemployed.
Additionally, while hazard observations are frequently high, environmental incidents remain comparatively low across most organisations, pointing to either successful hazard mitigation strategies or limitations in how environmental risks are captured and classified.
Our own analysis of the Accident Incident Rate (AIR) data highlights a pressing concern: smaller companies, often comprised of selfemployed individuals, show significantly weaker safety outcomes. This disparity underscores the urgent need for targeted interventions to improve safety standards and support within this group.
The Safety Triangle has been used to evaluate organisational safety culture and demonstrate the proportional relationship between incident types. Its application supports consistency in statistical reporting across multiple years. According to the model, for every fatality, there are approximately 10 lost workday cases, 30 minor injuries, 600 near misses, and an estimated 300,000 unsafe behaviours,
highlighting the importance of addressing lower-tier events to prevent serious outcomes.
The above graphic compares the Safety Triangle with real-world data provided by the AGS, highlighting key differences in incident ratios and reporting trends.
The contrast between the theoretical safety pyramid and the AGS data highlights both consistency and deviation. While the core principle remains valid (serious incidents often arise from a wider foundation of less severe occurrences), the ratios in the AGS dataset are notably more condensed. In place of the traditional model’s 600 near misses and 300,000 unsafe acts leading to a single fatality, the AGS data triangle presents just 470 near misses and 13,280 at-risk behaviours. This difference further highlights the ongoing need to improve how unsafe acts and near misses are reported across the industry.
are enhancing their partnership - an encouraging development marking a step forward in industry-wide collaboration. When benchmarking safety outcomes, it is important to recognise the differences between their datasets.
Î BDA members are primarily operational drilling contractors, working in environments that involve mobile plant, variable site conditions and manual labour, all of which carry higher inherent risk.
“ Consistent and comprehensive documentation of AtRisk Behaviours and Near Misses remains an area requiring attention.
Î In contrast, AGS membership encompasses a broader spectrum of the geotechnical and geoenvironmental sector, including organisations often operating in lower-risk, office-based or controlled settings.
The AGS and BDA, recognised as two key bodies in the ground investigation sector,
This distinction contributes to the lower AIR and AFR figures reported by the AGS. While this data shows stronger trends in minor injury and hazard reporting and indicates a more developed reporting culture in some areas, the reduced use of heavy plant makes direct comparisons with BDA data challenging. These
differences highlight the need for more specific benchmarks to ensure fair and meaningful evaluation across the industry.
Currently, 22% of AGS members are contributing to data sharing initiatives. While overall membership has grown, this marks a 5% decline in participation compared to 2023 figures. This shortfall underscores the urgent need to expand data sharing efforts, not just for broader engagement, but to strengthen the accuracy and reliability
challenges, accelerating targeted interventions and fostering more consistent, data-driven reporting standards.
“ Currently, 22% of AGS members are contributing to data sharing initiatives. While overall membership has grown, this marks a 5% decline in participation compared to 2023...
The 2024 accident statistics for the geotechnical and geoenvironmental industry reveal encouraging progress in safety reporting and intervention. Serious incidents have dropped by 76% since last year, while minor injury reporting rose
Article contributed by Olivia Maxwell (Principal Geo-Environmental Consultant at Omnia Consulting)
AMaterials Management Plan (MMP)
can allow the re-use of contaminated or uncontaminated soil, Made Ground and other material in earthworks without the requirement to go through the lengthy and costly process of obtaining an environmental permit.
Arisings generated by site levelling, foundation and basement excavations, road construction and utility service trenches can result in thousands of tonnes of surplus material being generated. In the case of brownfield projects, the off-site disposal of these surplus materials can be a significant cost item, as well as a nonsustainable option, and may impact a projects viability.
This Made Ground material may be considered as waste by the definition set out in the Waste Framework Directive (WFD) Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directives (2008)1 meaning it must be handled in line with waste duty of care requirements and cannot legally be used again unless an environmental permit is issued, which can take several months and incur significant application costs.
The CL:AIRE Definition of Waste: Development Industry Code of Practice Version 2 (DoWCoP)
(2011)2 was developed to provide a simplified process to enable the re-use of site-won materials (‘waste’ and non-waste), either on the site of origin, or on another nominated site (movement between sites) without the need for an Environmental Permit.
The CL:AIRE DoWCoP sets out four main principles for the use of materials as nonwaste. The Materials Management Plan must contain sufficient information to demonstrate these requirements are met.
Adequate assessment must be undertaken, and where necessary, protection or remediation measures must be specified. Any material that presents unacceptable risk of pollution of the environment or harm to human health it is likely to be classed as a waste, although it may be possible to update the design or treat the material (see point 2).
The material must be suitable for the intended use, particularly in terms of its chemical and geotechnical properties. Excavated materials that are suitable for use without requiring treatment are unlikely to be classed as a waste. Material requiring treatment, such as to alter chemical or physical/geotechnical properties will be classed as a waste, but once treated and suitable for use, will no longer be considered waste under an approved MMP.
It must be demonstrated that the materials will
actually be used and that the use is not just a probability, but a certainty. The DoWCoP requires this is established at the outset, meaning any material excavated and stockpiled with no predefined destination or use will become a waste.
intend to bring in clean greenfield soils from another development site.
In accordance with Chapter 1, Article 2 of the Waste Framework Directive article 2(c) states “uncontaminated soil and other naturally occurring material excavated in the course of construction activities where it is certain that the material will be used for the purposes of construction in its natural state on the site from which it was excavated” is exempt from the Waste Framework Directive, and therefore is not classed as a waste.
“ When a client wants to progress with an MMP, it needs to be considered early on in the development scheme...
Materials should only be used in the quantities necessary for that use, and no more. The use of an excessive amount of material will indicate that it is being disposed of and is waste.
The Code of Practice (MMP) is voluntary and applies to England and Wales only. It is possible to demonstrate a material is not a waste outside of this CoP, or to allow re-use of ‘waste materials’ through specific Environmental Permits and agreement with the Environment Agency (EA).
The re-use of surplus soils without an Environmental Permit, Waste Exemption or MMP would be classed as an unauthorised deposit of waste (landfilling) which has legal ramifications and can result in HM Treasury applying landfill tax to the deposited material at the maximum rate.
An MMP is required if you intend to re-use brownfield soil arisings on your site, or if you
It will be prudent for sites meeting the above criteria to demonstrate that each criteria has been met, and this can be completed in the form of a written letter addressing each point.
When a client wants to progress with an MMP, it needs to be considered early on in the development scheme and needs to be in place and fully authorised by CL:AIRE before the excavation and stockpiling of material commences.
An MMP cannot be applied for retrospectively and so any arisings generated prior to an MMP being accepted by CL:AIRE, that are not covered by an existing Waste Exemption or Environmental Permit, will be classed as a waste and must be handled in line with waste duty of care requirements.
Once the MMP is in place, it is important to ensure the soil re-use on-site is correctly managed and recorded.
Regardless of the complexity of your soil re-use, the principles of managing the soils remains the same.
As well as having an MMP in place to demonstrate that soils are suitable to be reused on-site, it is important to also have a plan on how soils will be tracked.
One of the most effective methods of tracking soils is to implement a grid-based system across the site. The grid squares can be as large or small as they need to be depending on the complexity of your site.
For example, if it is really important that soils from one corner of the site are only re-used in another small area, it would be better to have smaller grid squares. Whereas if you are only re-using clean materials, and they can be used anywhere on the site, it would be practical to have larger grid squares that represented close to the amount of soils that could be moved per day.
Once you have your grid system decided, you will also need to set up a tracking form
to record where materials have arisen from, where they are stockpiled, and where they end up. You can also use this form to record any required testing, import tickets and disposal tickets. This form should be included as part of the MMP application.
The purpose of the tracking form is to clearly demonstrate where materials have come from, and where they have been placed.
To ensure soils are tracked the whole way through a project, it is key to decide who is going to be responsible for completing the tracking form.
Using Drone surveys on-site is becoming more and more popular and is a great way of recording what is happening on-site at a given time. When you compare weekly drone photographs of the site, it is easy to see how things have evolved over time. You can use
these images to document stockpiles and soil re-use, by annotating them and linking them back to the tracking form.
Recording movements on-site does not have to be as high-tech as using a drone though. The client might have weekly site meetings where they print out a large drawing of the site and draw on where the stockpiles are, what areas are completed, where soils are due to be cut etc. This method is just as effective.
The key with whatever method of tracking you use, is that it needs to be simple, and a small addition to the works the developers are already doing. It is very likely that they are already recording the information needed for managing soil reuse under an MMP.
Throughout the soil movement phase of works, it can be helpful to have a 3rd party (eg the person preparing the verification report, but not completing the records) review the records to advise on the information that is being recorded, and to also offer guidance and advice of any problems that may have arisen.
It can be helpful to start the process with a prestart meeting to discuss the requirements with all parties who will be involved on-site, and come up with the most appropriate tracking system for the site.
Once all the soil movements are complete, you will need to “close out” the MMP with CL:AIRE, which can only be done by submitting a Verification Report.
The CL:AIRE DoWCoP sets out the following will be needed within a Verification Report:
1. Appropriate site plans;
2. Experience and qualifications of the person preparing the report in relation to the specific project;
3. Description of the project;
4. Description of how the use of materials links with the Remediation Strategy or Design Statement (which should be set out in the agreed MMP already);
5. Reference to site investigation data if applicable (which should be set out in the agreed MMP already);
6. Reference to risk assessments (including qualitative risk assessments) (which should be set out in the agreed MMP already);
7. Reference to the MMP and associated tracking system, including alterations made and why;
8. Suitable for use criteria;
9. Treatment records (if applicable);
10. Laboratory analysis (if applicable);
11. Reference to waste transfer documentation, including return loads (if applicable);
12. Signed delivery tickets (if applicable);
13. Record of contingency arrangement(s) that had to be implemented;
14. Record of quantity of materials used (this can be calculated using a pre-start and post completion topographic survey); and
15. Copies of signed Declaration(s) by Qualified Person(s).
If you do not submit a Verification Report for your MMP, the project could be considered “non-Compliant” and the imported/ excavated/reused material could potentially be considered as an illegal deposit. CL:AIRE may share such data with the EA / NRW and HMRC.
1. Waste Framework Directive (2008) Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directives
2. CL:AIRE (2011) Definition of Waste: Development Industry Code of Practice Version 2
The AGS Loss Prevention Working Group is looking into the business risks and legal issues associated with the emerging climate change and environmental issues affecting AGS members. The implications of these issues are already being felt in the planning and delivery of infrastructure and capital projects and as a consequence there has been a rise in disputes.
This AGS Magazine article outlines these emerging issues and the LPWG proposes to look in more detail at particular issues in future magazine articles and AGS documents. Its aim is to help members understand how disputes arise and how to avoid them. The discussion below is based on a recent article written by Alex Lee, AGS Chair, for HKA’s ‘Crux insight newsletter’ which summarises the latest trends in increasing and emerging environmental disputes. HKA Global Ltd, an AGS member organisation, conducts annual surveys of emerging areas of litigation in the
construction sector.
The LPWG would welcome any comments on commercial / contractual / legal issues regarding climate change and the environment, or examples from members’ experiences, to help direct the Group to review those topics of most interest.
Disruption related to climate change –adverse weather impacts
Unpredictable weather can lead to extended project timelines, particularly for projects on exposed sites or covering large areas. Extreme heat is now affecting UK industries where workers are exposed to the elements. Disruption of global supply chains, which have led to claims over late deliveries on around one in 10 projects, is often caused by natural events.
Parties have been invoking force majeure clauses to avoid liability for disruption caused by unpredictable weather, but establishing if the burden was beyond a party’s reasonable control can be complex and challenging. As extreme events become more frequent contracting parties need to focus on how contracts define responsibility under force majeure.
and lead to civil disputes involving damages for common law nuisance or negligence, and contract breaches.
Designers need to take account of the effects of extreme weather, for example flooding, high winds and on material selection.
Emerging contaminants are increasing
Lawsuits related to alleged exposures to ‘forever chemicals’ are increasing. These per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a diverse and large group of synthetic organic chemicals, commonly used in the construction industry. PFAS are persistent in the environment and hard to remediate. Site construction on brownfield sites can mobilise PFAS and introduce new pathways for exposure and receptors. Plumes can travel further than with conventional hydrocarbon contamination.
“ Regulatory guidance on PFAS is evolving as awareness of PFAS-related risks increases. The concentration levels at which these chemicals are deemed safe has been decreasing.
Unforeseen contamination is a traditional source of dispute
Pressure from project promoters to start works early and speed completion compresses the pre-construction phase, which can lead to poorly conducted environmental due diligence and site investigation. This can lead to project delays and legal disputes when unexpected contamination is found.
This also increases the likelihood of pollution incidents which may breach statutory rules
Regulatory guidance on PFAS is evolving as awareness of PFASrelated risks increases. The concentration levels at which these chemicals are deemed safe has been decreasing.
There may be gaps in a site’s historical records, and developers can face significant extra costs if these chemicals are unexpectedly found. PFAS related insurance claims are increasing, with increasing disputes regarding insurance cover and retrospective liability. Liability and contractual indemnity clauses and should be carefully reviewed to ensure that any responsibility for PFAS related risks is clearly allocated.
Carbon footprints jeopardise planning consents
Increasingly, climate change is a material
consideration in planning decisions, prompting challenges to new road, air and national infrastructure.
Greenwashing by companies and governments is seen to project an eco-conscious image not supported by meaningful reductions in environmental impact. As demand for environmentally friendly and sustainable goods and services has grown, so has the prevalence of greenwashing, whether of company credentials, products or services. The risk of litigation against such misrepresentation remains high. Companies must consider the rapidly evolving regulations in this area before making statements about the sustainability of their projects.
Biodiversity impacts raise regulatory risks
High-emission industries and those that cause severe or widespread damage to the environment will be targets for litigation under current and new legislation. New biodiversity laws are already bringing government and the construction sector into conflict with a potential rise in biodiversity-related disputes in the construction sector.
Contract clauses requiring compliance with climate change and carbon reduction targets
Contracts are increasingly containing clauses requiring compliance with climate change and carbon reduction targets. These are being included by governments and businesses to align national economies and commercial activities with sustainability goals and shifting towards a low-carbon economy. These clauses may require the setting of greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, the monitoring and reporting of emissions, the implementation of
carbon reduction plans, and the reduction of waste production and the increase of recycling and reuse.
Organisations drafting and signing contracts containing such clauses need to consider how the requirements can actually be achieved by their suppliers, how they can be legally enforced, and how they will be interpreted by the courts. Organisations should consider a collaborative approach with their suppliers, particularly smaller businesses, and consider early communication, training and a collaborative approach. Both parties to such contracts must stay updated and adapt to evolving standards.
Environmental litigation is poised to expand on these and other fronts. Heightening public and political awareness, stricter regulations, and global efforts to deliver change are increasing scrutiny of infrastructure and capital projects and consequently the corresponding risk of litigation related to sustainability.
For now, traditional pollution, emerging contaminants and project delay cases continue to dominate. Indemnity and insurance disputes are rising, as are claims over climate-related design failures. Balancing environmental, economic and political pressures will be difficult for legislators (and others). Developers may find getting planning consent for major infrastructure much harder. Ultimately, more biodiversity disputes are anticipated, along with diverse cases over corporate governance. The need to anticipate, investigate and mitigate these and other environmental risks can only increase.
If readers have any comments on the issues discussed, or examples from their experiences, then please pass them on to the AGS at ags@ ags.org.uk.
Brimstone UXO has delivered thousands of projects in partnership with geotechnical and geoenvironmental specialists. From trial pits and boreholes to soil sampling, we provide the assurance that ground investigations are carried out safely, efficiently, and cost-effectively.
We work seamlessly alongside geotechnical engineers to reduce risk and keep ground investigations on track. Our services include:
UXO Risk Assessments – detailed analysis before works begin.
Watching Briefs – on-site UXO support for trial pits, reduced digs and excavations.
Borehole Support – industry-leading downhole capability with instant clearance reporting.
With engineers located across the UK, we can deploy quickly to any site. Our team is recruited from the British Army, Royal Navy, and Royal Air Force, and are EOD-trained and highly experienced.
Nearly a decade of UXO risk management and the fact that 50% of our monthly deployments support geotechnical and geoenvironmental projects make Brimstone the trusted partner of choice for geotechnical specialists nationwide.
Equipe Training's specialist geotechnical training courses are delivered both in person at our dedicated training facility just outside of Banbury, Oxfordshire, and also online via Zoom!
Available upcoming dates are provided below:
Î 19th November 2025 - Foundation Design - Part 1 (Basic)
Î 20th November 2025 - Foundation Design - Part 2 (Further)
Î 27th November 2025 - Mastering the AGS Data Format (ONLINE ONLY)
Î 17th December 2025 - Understanding and Scheduling Geotechnical Laboratory Tests
Î 8th January 2026 - Professor David Norbury’s Soil Description Workshop
Î 14th January 2026 - Earthworks Design & Construction
Î 15th January 2026 - Slope Stability Design
Î 5th February 2026 - Professor David Norbury’s Chalk Description Workshop
Places on these courses can be booked online here, or via contacting Equipe on +44 (0)1295 670990 or info@equipegroup.com
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 dates include:
Î 25th November 2025 - Managing and working with Asbestos Risk in Ground Investigation
Î 18th December 2025 - IOSH Avoiding Danger from Underground Services
Î 9th – 11th December 2025 - IOSH Safe Supervision of Geotechnical Sites
Î 8th April 2026 - Safe Working on Geotechnical Sites (ONLINE ONLY)
Places on these courses can be booked online here, or via contacting Equipe on +44 (0)1295 670990 or info@equipegroup.com
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 Thursday 8th January 2026.
All Members of the AGS are entitled to free introductory advice on legal/contractual matters from AGS Loss Prevention Group member, Beale & Co.
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.
(Please quote ‘AGS Helpline’)
LEGAL HELPLINE
Beale & Co
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7469 0400 www.beale-law.com
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.
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
RATE: £165
Company
RATE: £50
All adverts should be sent in a PDF, PNG, JPEG, TIFF, PSD (Photoshop) or EPS (Illustrator) format.
All advertising artwork must be supplied in 114 dpi resolution.
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.
The Geological Society
Burlington House, Piccadilly, London W1J 0BG
020 7434 9944
hello@geolsoc.org.uk
ADVERTISE HERE FOR JUST £50
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.
All articles in the AGS Magazine 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(s), 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.