Dear Jiscmail list,
BS 10175 revised draft – Phases 1, 2, 3 & 4 – What are your views?
I shall be recording / reporting for Environmental Protection (UK) at the draft BS 10175 Consultation Workshop on 18th August at Arup’s Midlands Campus, Solihull, B90 8AE.
I would therefore greatly appreciate your views on the following proposed revision to the Code of Practice.
One proposed revision introduces the new terminology of Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3 & Phase 4 investigations.
• Phase 1 investigation - desk study and site reconnaissance.
• Phase 2 (exploratory) - to refine the initial conceptual model, it may also include initial ground investigation.
• Phase 3 (main) investigation - to collect and analyse soil, surface water, groundwater and monitoring and sampling of soil gas.
• Phase 4 (supplementary) investigation - more sampling and testing.
Whereas, the existing BS 10175:2001 refers to:
• preliminary investigations - (Desk Study / ies).
• exploratory investigations - Intrusive Ground Investigation, sampling and testing.
• main investigation - (ditto).
• supplementary investigation - (ditto).
Although the existing BS 10175:2001 refers to the principle of phasing and a step by step approach, it does not refer to Phase 1, Phase 2 etc.
In addition, the “yellow specification” the Specification for Ground Investigation, 1993, published by Thomas Telford Services Ltd, I recall, refers to; a the existing BS 10175:2001 wording.
the existing BS 10175:2001 wording.
NB: Many such investigations, in practice, will be for contamination plus geological / geotechnical / hydrogeological / civil engineering / earthworks / foundations etc purposes.
A Phase 2, referred to in the draft C of P as (exploratory), could in fact just be a supplementary Desk Study. Why not just call it that? It’s not really exploratory, it’s more investigatory? Or on another commission a Phase 2 could be the one and only intrusive ground investigation. Is this going to cause confusion with clients, with ourselves?
What about all the remaining “phases”? Should Phase 5 be an Interpretative report? Phase 6 a Rsk Asessment? But what if the risk assessment is part of the interpretative report? etc. etc. Confusing?
The industry (landowners, developers, clients, consultants, contractors, regulators, academics etc) I am sure all generally agree this must be a step by step process. And that most are familiar with the general progression from:
• Desk Studies (possibly more than one) to;
• Intrusive Investigations sampling & testing (possibly more than one) to;
• Interpretation to;
• Risk Assessments (possibly more than one, preliminary, generic, detailed) to;
• Options Appraisals to;
• Remediation Strategies to;
• Regulatory consultation and agreement to;
• Implementation and remediation to;
• Verification and;
• Monitoring.
I’m sure we all agree every site is different. Every client’s requirements are different.
But will it be confusing when some sites have only a Phase 1 and say a Phase 3 report. Will people not be looking for a Phase 2 report?
Your views would be greatly appreciated. You may wish to copy and paste some of the following replies in your response.
I agree with this change:
• The proposed terminology of Phases 1, 2, 3 & 4 will not lead to confusion.
• The proposed terminology of Phases 1, 2, 3 & 4 is necessary.
• The proposed terminology of Phases 1, 2, 3 & 4 is a good idea and should be adopted.
I disagree with this change:
• The proposed terminology of Phases 1, 2, 3 & 4 will lead to confusion.
• The proposed terminology of Phases 1, 2, 3 & 4 is unnecessary.
• The proposed terminology of Phases 1, 2, 3 & 4 is not a good idea and should not be adopted.
• The philosophy of Desk Study / ies (possibly more than one); preliminary, main, supplementary is sound.
• The philosophy of Intrusive Investigations sampling & testing (possibly more than one); preliminary, main, supplementary is sound.
• Just say what the report is for (preliminary, main, supplementary, detailed design etc) in the title.
I couldn’t care less.
Thank you, Martin Fairlie
|