DOCUMENT INFORMATION AND CONTROL SHEET

Document Status and Approval Schedule

Report No. Title

WEL-P43 Conceptual Site Model Report for Stowey Quarry, Bishop Sutton,Near Bristol.

Issue HistoryIssue Status Prepared By: Position Signature Date

1 Final Rob Harper Director 20/04/2011

DISCLAIMER

This report was completed by Watermill Environment Limited (WEL) on the basis of a definedprogramme and scope of works and terms and conditions agreed with the client. This reportwas compiled with all reasonable skill and care, bearing in mind the project objectives, theagreed scope of works, the prevailing site conditions, the budget, the degree of manpower andresources allocated to the project as agreed.

WEL cannot accept responsibility to any parties whatsoever, following the issue of this report,for any matters arising which may be considered outwith the agreed scope of works.

This report is issued solely to the client and WEL cannot accept any responsibility to any thirdparties to whom this report may be circulated, in part or in full, and any such parties rely onthe contents at their own risk.

Watermill Environment Limited Conceptual Site Model Report for Stowey Quarry

C:\Users\Rob\Documents\CLIENTS\Oaktree Environmental\Stowey Quarry\Report\Stowey Quarry CSM FINAL (20-04-11).docx i

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background 11.2 Scope of report 11.3 Information sources 1

2 SITE SETTING 3

2.1 Site location 32.2 Topography of site and local area 32.3 Water features 32.4 Geology 42.5 Hydrogeology 52.6 Rainfall 7

3 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL 8

3.1 Source 83.2 Pathways 93.3 Receptors 93.4 Qualitative risk assessment 9

4 RECOMMENDATIONS 11

4.1 Future site monitoring 114.2 Additional preparation work 11


C:\Users\Rob\Documents\CLIENTS\Oaktree Environmental\Stowey Quarry\Report\Stowey Quarry CSM FINAL (20-04-11).docx ii

TABLES

Table 1 GeologyTable 2 Groundwater levelsTable 3 RainfallTable 4 Leachate compositionTable 5 CSM summaryTable 6 Site monitoring

FIGURES

Figure 1 Site locationFigure 2 Local water featuresFigure 3 Geological cross-section

APPENDICES

Appendix A Earth Science Partnership Figure 3: “Geological features” (May 2007) andborehole logs: RO1 and RO2 (April 2007).

Appendix B Borehole logs contained in Appendices to M. J. Carter Associates “A Report of aSite Investigation to determine the Depth of Mineral Extraction and the Suitabilityof Materials for use in the Construction of Low Permeability Seals at StoweyQuarry” (November 1998).

Appendix C GroundSure Enviro- and Geo-Insight Reports (ref. HMD-188-1014615 & 1014616).

Appendix D Oaktree Environmental Ltd. Drawing No. 2055/126/10: “Cell constructionschematic”, (January 2011).


C:\Users\Rob\Documents\CLIENTS\Oaktree Environmental\Stowey Quarry\Report\Stowey Quarry CSM FINAL (20-04-11).docx 1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

1.1.1 Watermill Environment Ltd. (WEL) was commissioned by Larry Edmunds to develop an initialConceptual Site Model (CSM) to describe the hydrogeological conditions at Stowey Quarry,Bishop Sutton, near Bristol.

1.1.2 The site is a former limestone quarry and the subject of a planning application to Bath andNorth East Somerset (BANES) Council (ref.10/05199/MINW) to be redeveloped as a landfillfor the disposal of Stable Non-Reactive Hazardous Waste (SNRHW), primarily comprisingcement-bonded asbestos, and inert waste.

1.1.3 The concerns raised by Bristol Water in its consultation response to BANES dated 9th March2011 are outlined as follows (paraphrased):

� The proximity of the site to Chew Valley Reservoir, some 2 km northwest of the site,which is used as a drinking water supply and is also a Special Protection Area (SPA)and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

� The potential for contamination of springs and streams in the vicinity of the site thatdrain into the reservoir.

� Uncertainty over the groundwater regime (flow mechanism and direction) at the site.

� Uncertainty over landfill engineering, surface water control and pre-disposal wastetreatment (sorting).

1.1.4 The purpose of this report is to address the above issues and qualitatively assess thepotential risk posed by the proposed landfill to the surrounding water environment. Aquantitative assessment of potential risk posed by the landfill to the local waterenvironment will be undertaken as part of the subsequent application to the EA for anEnvironmental Permit.

1.2 Scope of report

1.2.1 The CSM contained in this report includes the following information:

a) Collation of existing information relating to the landfill’s environmental setting,including topography, geology and water environment (surface water andgroundwater).

b) Development of an outline hydrogeological conceptual site model (CSM) to describeviable source-pathway-receptor linkages at the site.

c) Presentation of the CSM, conclusions of the risk assessment and recommendations forfuture management of the site.

1.3 Information sources

1.3.1 The following information was used in the preparation of this report:



i) M. J. Carter Associates: “A Report of a Site Investigation to determine the Depth ofMineral Extraction and the Suitability of Materials for use in the Construction of LowPermeability Seals at Stowey Quarry” (November 1998).

ii) GroundSure Enviro- and Geo-Insight Reports (ref. HMD-188-1014615 & 1014616)

iii) Oaktree Environmental Ltd. Drawing No. 2055/126/10: “Cell construction schematic”,(January 2011).

iv) Earth Science Partnership (ESP) Figure 3: “Geological features” (May 2007) and boreholelogs: RO1 and RO2 (April 2007).

v) British Geological Survey (BGS) Map Sheet 280 (Wells), 1:50,000 scale, Solid and Drift.

vi) Environment Agency H1 Technical Annex to Annex J: “Hydrogeological Risk Assessmentsfor Landfills and the Derivation of Groundwater Control and Trigger Levels”, (October2010).

vii) www.environment-agency.gov.uk for guidance and local environmental information.

viii) www.metoffice.gov.uk for long term rainfall data (1971-2000).

ix) www.natureonthemap.org.uk for locations of environmentally sensitive areas in vicinityof the site.



2 SITE SETTING

2.1 Site location

2.1.1 The site is located some 0.85 km southeast of Bishop Sutton, centres on National GridReference (NGR) ST 599 587 and covers an area of approximately 7.9 Ha.

2.1.2 The location of the site is shown in Figure 1.

2.2 Topography of site and local area

2.2.1 The site is situated at the northern edge of Sutton Hill, a broad plateau which extends forsome 3 km southeast of Bishop Sutton.

2.2.2 Ground level around the site lies approximately within 155 and 160 metres relative toOrdnance datum (mOD), although spoil mounds within the site reach around 165 mOD inplaces.

2.2.3 Land to the south, across the top of Sutton Hill, remains above 150 mOD for some 800 mbefore declining southwards into the valley of the River Cam.

2.2.4 Two gullies exist west and north of the site. To the north of the site, ground drops away intoa gully beneath and east of Broad Wood before rising again to some 145 mOD some 400 mfrom the site.

2.2.5 Ground level declines northwestwards from 155 mOD to below 100 mOD within around 300m of the site (an approximate gradient of 1:5). Further northwest, ground level continues todecline to around 55 mOD at Chew Valley Lake.

2.3 Water features

2.3.1 Surface water features in the vicinity of the site are shown in Figure 2.

2.3.2 A spring rises some 50 m west of the site at an elevation of some 150 mOD, giving rise to astream called Barelegs Brake.

2.3.3 A spring rises on Sutton Hill some 80 m southeast of the site at some 162 mOD and flowsnorthwestwards and then northeastwards along Stowey Road towards the eastern corner ofthe site. It is considered likely that this is the on-site ‘spring’ noted by Carter Associates in1998.

2.3.4 Other springs occur north and northwest of the site at distances of 500-650 m and elevationsof 110-140 mOD.

2.3.5 It is noted that there is no apparent spring line within the gully north of the site. Springs doexist at around 120 mOD some 900 m northeast of the site which may be supported bygroundwater within Lias strata (although outside of the immediate catchment area of thesite), one of which supports the Cinderlands Brake.

2.3.6 The Barelegs Brake flows generally northwards and is met by streams from the other springsuntil, some 1.5 km north of the site, it heads west for another 1 km to its entry into Chew



Valley Lake some 2 km northwest of the site.

2.3.7 The northern part of the site contains waterlogged areas as shown in ESP Figure 3 (seeAppendix A).

2.3.8 No licensed or unlicensed groundwater abstractions are known to exist within at least 0.5km of the site. The local geology is such (see Section 2.4) that groundwater use in this area isconsidered unlikely.

2.4 Geology

2.4.1 The geological data report published by GroundSure is contained in Appendix C. A summaryof the geological information is given below. Information is also taken from previous siteinvestigations by M J Carter Associates (MJCA) in 1997 and 1998 and Earth SciencePartnership (ESP) in 2007.

2.4.2 Collation of geological information from boreholes drilled in 1997, 1998 (MJCA and 2007(ESP) is difficult due to the differing terminology used for each set of geological logs andabsence of ground elevations for some of the boreholes (1997 set). The inferred geologicalsequence is as follows:

Lithology Geological unit (age) Thickness Comments

Sandy, gravellyclay. Overburden.

Up to 3.6m (ESP CPlogs).

Weatheredgrey clay andlimestonebeds.

Lias Limestone,comprising ‘Blue Lias’and CothamMarble(Lower Jurassic).

Up toaround 10m thick.

Dark grey,laminated,calcareousmudstone.

Penarth Group(Lower Jurassic).

Approx. 5-6 m thick.

Identified* in:RO1 at 5.4 mbglBH1 at 4.0 mbglBH2 at 6.3 mbglBH3 at 12.3 mbglBH4 at 11.0 mbglBHSI1 at 13.0 mbglBHSI2 at 11.6 mbglBH1/97 at 1.8 mbglBH2/97 at 0.9 mbglBH3/97 at 5.55 mbglBH4/97 at 1.25 mbglBH5/97 at 11.6 mbgl



Weatheredgrey-brownsiltstonegrading to darkred-brownmudstone withgypsum.

Mercia Mudstone(Triassic). Unproven.

Identified* in:RO1 at 12.0 mbglBH1 at 8.7 mbglBH2 at 10.8 mbglBH3 at 16.8 mbglBH4 at 15.8 mbglBHSI1 at 16.0 mbglBH3/97 at 10.3 mbglBH5/97 at 16.6 mbgl

Table 1: Inferred geology (* WEL interpretation).

2.4.3 An inferred geological cross-section is presented in Figure 3, oriented northwest-southeast(see Figure 2 for line of section).

2.3.4 The base of the Lias Limestone strata dips northeastwards from around 151 mOD to 145mOD (MJCA data), an approximate angle of around 2-3 degrees (calculated from MJCA data).The Penarth Group and Mercia Mudstone outcrop some 100 m and 150 m west of the siterespectively.

2.3.5 The Bishop Sutton Fault runs within some 400 m north of the site in a west-east direction.MJCA reports a possible spur fault in the northeastern part of the site with a displacement ofaround 4.5 m (downthrown to the south).

2.5 Hydrogeology

2.5.1 Historical groundwater level data exists for the site dated 1998 (MJCA) and 2007 (ESP). Thefollowing levels have been recorded:

Borehole Responsezone geology

MJCA dips#1Groundwaterlevel (mOD)

MJCA dips#2Groundwaterlevel (mOD)

ESP dips#1(mOD)

11/09/98 14/09/98 2007BH1

LiasLimestone

152.01 151.98 148.99BH2 149.14 149.16 BH not foundBH3 145.62 145.62 BH not foundBH4 (shallow) 156.09 156.09 BH not foundBH4 (deep) 153.35 153.77 BH not foundRO1 Mercia

Mudstone - - 141.06

Table 2: Observed groundwater levels (old data).

NB: two piezometers were installed at different depths in BH4, although not obviouslyhydraulically isolated from each other (see geological log in Appendix B).

2.5.3 In addition to the above data, groundwater was struck in borehole BHSI1 and BHSI2 atdepths of 156.5 mOD and 154.3 mOD respectively.



2.5.4 The following is noted with regard to groundwater at the site:

� The watertable within the Lias Limestone strata declines northeastwards across thesite from some 152 mOD to 146 mOD (MJCA data). Collation with the elevation of thebase of the Lias Limestone strata (MJCA data) indicates that only the basal metre or soof the Lias Limestone is saturated.

� ESP monitored groundwater level within Borehole RO1 in 2007 and identified a levelof around 141.mOD. As this borehole is screened within the Mercia Mudstone, it isconsidered likely that groundwater encountered within these strata is hydraulicallyisolated from that within overlying strata. Furthermore, it is possible that theobserved groundwater non-conformable across the site (i.e. ‘static’) due to the likelylow permeability of the Mercia Mudstone strata.

� If current hydrogeological conditions remain similar to those observed in 1998, it islikely that there is an unsaturated zone within the Lias Limestone of between some 2and 5 metres thickness beneath the quarry base (i.e. not including existing spoilmounds within the site).

� The observed groundwater occurrence indicates that the Penarth Group strata(mudstones) are acting as an efficient barrier to downward groundwater flow, causingretention of water within the Lias Limestone strata.

� It is considered likely that the dominant groundwater flow mechanism within the LiasLimestones is via fractures rather than via intergranular (matrix) flow.

� Groundwater flow does not appear to be topography-controlled, adding weight to theobservation that the Penarth Group strata are less fractured and forming anaquiclude.

� As mentioned in Section 2.3.5, there is no apparent discharge zone for groundwaterwithin the Lias Limestone in the vicinity of the site. It is considered likely that thespring line some 900 m northeast of the site represents the closest outlet for thegroundwater observed at the site.

� No groundwater quality data exist. It is considered likely that the EA will require arepresentative dataset to establish baseline conditions and for comparison withresults of the quantitative risk assessment for the landfill.

� Groundwater quality within the underlying Mercia Mudstone is likely to be of poorerquality than that within the Lias Limestone strata due to the presence of halite andgypsum in the sequence giving rise to elevated natural concentrations of sulphate ingroundwater.

� The Lias Limestone strata are likely to be classified by the EA as a Secondary B aquiferas they appear to fit the description as follows: “predominantly lower permeabilitylayers which may store and yield limited amounts of groundwater due to localisedfeatures such as fissures, thin permeable horizons and weathering. These aregenerally the water-bearing parts of the former non-aquifer”.



� The only known licensed groundwater and surface water abstractions in the vicinity ofthe site are as follows (see Appendix C):

o A borehole at NGR ST 591 585 (621 m west of the site).o A well at NGR ST 590 585 (714 m west of the site.o A spring at NGR ST 580 587 (1592 m west of the site).

None of the above licensed abstractions are considered to be downgradient of thesite.

2.6 Rainfall

2.6.1 The site is located approximately equidistant from three rain gauges: Cardiff, Lyneham andYeovil (all around 40-45 km from the site). Long-term rainfall data for these rain gauges isgiven below for the period 1971 to 2000:

Gauge Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecCardiff 119 91 89 65 65 66 61 90 104 117 117 128Lyneham 70 51 58 48 52 59 47 56 64 70 67 77Yeovil 72 56 57 47 49 57 49 57 65 68 66 83

Average: 87 66 68 53 55 61 52 68 77 85 83 96

Table 3: Long term rainfall data (mm).

2.6.2 The average total annual rainfall is 852 mm, equating to 2.33 mm per day (mm/d).



3 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL

3.1 General

3.1.1 From the available information relating to the proposed landfill, local geology and extantwater environment, the following Conceptual Site Model (CSM) is developed to describe thepotentially significant source-pathway-receptor (SPR) linkages at the site.

3.2 Source

3.2.1 The proposed landfill will receive Stable Non-Reactive Hazardous Waste (SNRHW)comprising mainly cement-bonded asbestos arising from the construction industry. Thesource of potential risk to the surrounding environment will be the chemicals in leachatewithin the landfill, contained by site engineering (low permeability liner with leachatecontrol system).

3.2.2 Inert waste will be used to raise ground level around the engineered landfill cell (seeAppendix D) to leave a level site.

3.2.3 No data exist relating to the chemical composition of the waste deposits that will bedisposed of at the site. Tentative leachate source concentrations are presented below basedon the leaching limit values for granular SNRHW (i.e. one tenth the 10l/kg leach test limit asper the 2 stage CEN leach test EN 12457/3). Agreement of the source term to be used in aquantitative risk assessment will requires clarification and agreement with the EA.

Components

Tentativemaximumleachate

concentration(mg/l)

Arsenic 0.2Barium 10Cadmium 0.1Chromium (total) 1Copper 5Mercury 0.02Molybdenum 1Nickel 1Lead 1Antimony 0.07Selenium 0.05Zinc 5Chloride 1500Fluoride 15Sulphate 2000Dissolved organic carbon 80Total dissolved solids 6000

Table 4: Tentative maximum leachate concentrations.



3.3 Pathways

3.3.1 The potential for mobilisation and migration of chemicals within the waste mass will becontrolled by the potential for water to infiltrate and flow through and out of the base of thewaste material into the geological strata beneath the site.

3.3.2 The site is located on potentially porous and permeable geological strata (Lias Limestone).Consequently, it is considered that there is potential for downward migration of leachate outof the base of the waste mass towards the underlying watertable (approximately 2-5 mbelow the current site level).

3.3.3 The primary method of containment of the SNRHW is by placement within an engineeredlandfill cell, constructed in accordance with Landfill Directive requirement. Leachate mustmigrate through the landfill liner to escape the site and enter the geosphere. The liner willinclude an Artificial Sealing Liner (geotextile) and low permeability mineral layer, e.g.compacted clay or similar, to minimise potential for leachate escape and provide attenuationof chemical contaminants. Leachate will also be controlled by active pumping to maintain alow standing depth within the landfill.

3.3.4 Any downward-migrating leachate will be transmitted horizontally within the saturated LiasLimestone strata towards a downgradient water receptor. Further downward migration islikely to be prevented by the presence of the strata of the Penarth Group (mudstones) andunderlying Mercia Mudstone.

3.4 Receptors

3.4.1 Groundwater and groundwater-supported surface waters are classified as ‘controlledwaters’ in accordance with the Water Resources Act (1991). As such, these waters areprotected from entry by Hazardous chemicals and pollution by Non-hazardous chemicals, inaccordance with the Groundwater Directive (1998).

3.4.2 It is likely that the EA will classify the groundwater within the Lias Limestone as a controlledwater, despite its limited resource potential locally. Furthermore, groundwater within thishorizon has the potential to act as a pathway for chemical contaminants to reach surfacewaters downgradient of the site. It is considered possible that the Lias Limestone may behydraulically connected with springs some 900 m northeast of the site.

3.4.3 Chew Valley Lake is located some 2 km northwest of the site on Mercia Mudstone strata. Assuch it is considered to be outside the potential zone of influence of the proposed landfill.The vertical thickness of mudstone (Penarth Group and Mercia Mudstone) between the baseof the site and the Lake is some 100 m, which is considered to be sufficient to negate anypotential for direct groundwater migration. Furthermore, groundwater flow within the LiasLimestone is northeastwards, away from the Lake.

3.4.3 No local groundwater receptors (other than the groundwater itself) are known in the vicinityof the site. Further checking of this will be undertaken as part of the quantitative riskassessment stage.

3.5 Qualitative risk assessment

3.5.1 The findings of this CSM are summarised below:



Criterion Comment

Pollutionpotential ofsource

Leachate within SNRHW is likely to exhibit lowerconcentrations than other Non-hazardouswaste. However, potentially high concentrationsof certain chemicals such as chloride andsulphate may occur.

Presence ofmigrationpathway(s)

Potential for downward migration of leachatethrough the engineered landfill liner towards thewatertable within the underlying Lias Limestonestrata (probably classified a Secondary B Aquiferby the EA).

Receptorspresent

Groundwater beneath the site (both receptorand pathway) and surface waters atdowngradient springs some 900 m northeast ofthe site boundary.

Table 5: Summary of CSM.

3.5.2 The CSM development described in this report permits the following conclusions regardingthe scale of potential risk posed by the proposed landfill:

� Chew Valley Lake is considered at negligible risk of pollution due to the large verticalthickness (approximately 100 m) of mudstone strata between the site and the Lake.Groundwater flow at the site is likely to still be northeastwards away from the Lake.

� The spring source of the Barelegs Brake is located on the upgradient side of the siteand therefore considered at low potential risk.

� There are no apparent springs supported by groundwater in the Lias Limestone stratain the immediate vicinity of the site. The closest potential springs considered atpotential risk are located some 900 m northeast of the site (to be assessedquantitatively in due course).

� The likelihood that a significant volume of leachate could escape the engineeredlandfill, flow downgradient to the groundwater discharge zone and subsequently flowdownstream into the Chew Valley Lake is considered very small (to be assessedquantitatively in due course).

3.5.3 The CSM described in this report is based principally on historical data. New site data mayindicate alternative geological or hydrogeological conditions that necessitate revision of theCSM and alteration of the conclusions described above.



4 RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Future site monitoring

4.1.1 The following site monitoring work is proposed in order to aid clarification of extanthydrogeological conditions at the site:

Monitoring Proposed monitoring Comments

Groundwaterlevel in allavailableboreholes

Monthly groundwater levelmonitoring for a minimumperiod of 12 months prior to (orconcurrent with) landfillconstruction and initial wastedisposal.

Consideration will be given todrilling additional monitoringboreholes within/around theperimeter of the site if anyexisting boreholes are found tobe not fit for purpose.

Groundwaterquality

Quarterly sampling ofboreholes within LiasLimestone and MerciaMudstone strata to gather adataset indicating baselineconditions.

Suggested boreholes include:

BH1, BH3, BH4 (Lias Limestone)RO1 (Mercia Mudstone)

Surfacewater quality

Stream water in Barelegs Brakeand Cinderland Brake, and asclose as possible to the springsin Broad Wood.

Table 6: Recommended additional site monitoring.

4.1.2 All site monitoring data will be used to revise/refine the CSM prior to undertaking aquantitative risk assessment for submission with a future Environmental Permit application.

4.2 Additional work

4.2.1 Development of a surface water management scheme to control the following:

� Surface water that may enter the site from surrounding land.

� Surface water collecting within the site during the operational stage – to be managedas per leachate management scheme.

� Run-off from the site during its post-closure (capped) stage.

4.2.2 Quantitative Hydrogeological Risk Assessment (HRA):

� Agree model input parameters such as leachate source term with the EA.

� Revise the CSM using all available monitoring data.

� Risk modelling in accordance with EA guidelines.


C:\Users\Rob\Documents\CLIENTS\Oaktree Environmental\Stowey Quarry\Report\Stowey Quarry CSM FINAL (20-04-11).docx

FIGURES&

APPENDICES

Figure 1: Site locationDoc. Ref. WEL-P43 CSM Report for Stowey QuarryDate: 20th April 2011

ChewValleyLake

1 square = 1 km

APPENDIX A

��

��

��

Project Name:

��

��

Site Location:

� ��

Project No:

��

��

��

��

��!��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Client:

"��#��

��

��

��

��

Core Details and SPT Data��

Strata Details��!� ��

��

Water��$�� !��

"�!�# ��$��% ��% %&�

�' �' �' (��

#��%��%��%��)*

+,$+-$.++/+,$+-$.++/+,$+-$.++/

��%��&��'(��%��)(�*��,/)+%

�"+,$+-$.++/

��+,��!��

-./(000�+

-.12.0�/.32.0�

RO1

(4.20)

(1.20)

(6.60)

(8.00)

-*.+

0*-+

).*++

��#��4 ��,��5(4��67��6)��8+9�5

#��(�4 ��,��5(�4��#��%��!��!��67��6)��8+9�5(

��)��(�4 ��,��5(�4��67��6)��8+9�5(

��(�4��)�#67�): �8+9�1%23�**

End of Borehole at 20.00 m

)

.

,

-

0

4

/

5

6

)+

))

).

),

)-

)0

)4

)/

)5

)6

.+

�!��-��-

��

��

��

Project Name:

��

��

Site Location:

� ��

Project No:

��

��

��

��

��!��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Client:

"��#��

��

��

��

��

Core Details and SPT Data��

Strata Details��!� ��

��

Water��$�� !��

"�!�# ��$��% ��% %&�

�' �' �' (��

#��%��%��%��)*

+,$+-$.++/+,$+-$.++/+,$+-$.++/

��%��&��'(��%��)(�*��,/)+%

�"+,$+-$.++/

��+,��!��

-.-(000�+

-.12.0�/.32.0�

RO2

-*++

(0.30)

(3.70)

(2.50)

(2.50)

+*,+

-*++

4*0+

6*++

��(�4 ��,��5(

��#��4 ��,��5(4��67��6)��8+9�5

#��(�4 ��,��5(�4��#��%��!��!��67��6)��8+9�5(

��(�4 ��,��5(4��67��6)��8+9�5(

End of Borehole at 9.00 m

)

.

,

-

0

4

/

5

6

)+

))

).

),

)-

)0

)4

)/

)5

)6

.+

�!��-��-

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX D

conceptual site model report for stowey quarry

Documents