preliminary ground investigation report for land … · undifferentiated (non) aquifer. there are...

36 Brunswick Road Gloucester GL1 1JJ

Tel: 01452 422843 Email: [email protected]

www.wilsonac.co.uk Company No. 6133365

Report No. 4130/2

PRELIMINARY GROUND INVESTIGATION REPORT

FOR LAND OFF OAKHURST RISE, BATTLEDOWN,

CHELTENHAM, GLOUCESTERSHIRE

PREPARED FOR WILLIAM MORRISON (CHELTENHAM) LIMITED

Job No. 4130/2

Page No. ii

Report Production Record

Report No 4130/2

Site Name Land off Oakhurst Rise, Battledown, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire

Client William Morrison (Cheltenham) Limited

Report on Preliminary Ground Investigation

Issue No. / Status 1 FINAL

Prepared by Simon A Wilkinson BSc (Geol) FGS

Approved by David J Wilson BSc(Geol) CGeol FGS MIQ

Date 06 March 2017

Report Revision Record

Issue No. Date Revision Details

COPYRIGHT AND NON-DISCLOSURE NOTICE

The contents and layout of this report are subject to copyright owned by Wilson Associates (2017) save to the extent that copyright has been legally assigned by us to another party or is used by Wilson Associates under licence. To the extent that we own the copyright of this report, it may not be copied or used without our prior written agreement for any purpose other than the purpose indicated in this report. The methodology (if any) contained in this report is provided to you in confidence and must not be disclosed or copied to third parties without the prior written agreement of Wilson Associates. Disclosure of that information may constitute an actionable breach of confidence or may otherwise prejudice our commercial interests. Any third party who obtains access to this report by any means will, in any event, be subject to the Third Party Disclaimer set out below.

THIRD PARTY DISCLAIMER Any disclosure of this report to a third party is subject to this disclaimer. The report was prepared by Wilson Associates at the instruction of, and for use by, our client named on the front of the report. It does not in any way constitute advice to any third party who is able to access it by any means. Wilson Associates excludes to the fullest extent lawfully permitted all liability whatsoever for any loss or damage howsoever arising from reliance on the contents of this report. We do not however exclude our liability (if any) for personal injury or death resulting from our negligence, for fraud or any other matter in relation to which we cannot legally exclude liability. Legal re-assignment to another party can be arranged - please contact this Practice for further details.

Job No. 4130/2

Page No. iii

CONTENTS

REPORT Page No.

1 INTRODUCTION 1

2 BACKGROUND SETTING 2

3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 3 4 GROUND INVESTIGATION REPORT 3

Site Works 3

Laboratory Testing – Geotechnical 4

Laboratory Testing – Contamination 6

Discussion on Ground Conditions 7

5 GEOTECHNICAL MODEL AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN 9 6 SOAKAWAY DRAINAGE 13 7 CONTAMINATION RISK ASSESSMENT 14

Human Health 14

Landfill Gas and Radon Gas 17

Controlled Waters 18

Waste Classification for Off-Site Disposal of Arisings 18

Water Supply Pipework 19

8 REFINED CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL AND PRELIMINARY REMEDIAL RECOMMENDATIONS 19 9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 21 10 REFERENCES 23

Job No. 4130/2

Page No. iv

DRAWINGS No. SITE LOCATION 4130/2/1

EXISTING SITE LAYOUT SHOWING INVESTIGATION LOCATIONS 4130/2/2

APPENDICES 1 SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

2 BOREHOLE AND TRIAL PIT LOGS (INCLUDING PHOTOGRAPHS)

3 CONTAMINATION STATUTORY FRAMEWORK/METHODOLOGY AND CERTIFIED CONTAMINATION TEST RESULTS

4 WASTE CLASSIFICATION WORKSHEET AND WAC RESULTS

5 GAS / WATER MONITORING RESULTS

Job No. 4130/2

Page No. 1

PRELIMINARY GROUND INVESTIGATION REPORT

FOR LAND OFF OAKHURST RISE, BATTLEDOWN,

CHELTENHAM, GLOUCESTERSHIRE

PREPARED FOR WILLIAM MORRISON (CHELTENHAM) LTD

1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 It is proposed to develop land off Oakhurst Rise in Battledown, Cheltenham to

comprise a residential led scheme, although a definitive development layout is yet to be finalised and is thus excluded. Following the recent submission of a Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Desk Study, a ground investigation was requested, the objectives of which were to ascertain the ground conditions to inform an appraisal of founding options and perform a detailed quantitative contamination risk assessment.

1.2 This geotechnical investigation has been carried out in general accordance with the

requirements of Eurocode 7 ‘Geotechnical Design’, in particular BS EN 1997-1:2004 and BS EN 1997-2:2007 and BS EN ISO 14688-1:2002 and 14688-2:2004. The proposed development is considered to fall into the Geotechnical Category 2 classification, thus routine field and laboratory testing methods have been adopted. Reference has also been made to BS5930:2015 Code of Practice for Ground Investigation, and NHBC Standards Chapter 4.2 – ‘Building Near Trees’.

1.3 As noted above, site investigations were preceded by a Phase 1 geo-environmental

desk study, carried out by this Practice in general accordance with BS10175:2011 “Code of Practice for the Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites” and EA document CLR 11 “Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination”. Reference should be made to that previous report 4130 dated November 2016 when reading this present document.

1.4 This report has been prepared in line with the agreed scope of works as set out within

our proposal SW/Q16257 dated 10 October 2016, with email instruction from William Morrison (Cheltenham) Limited. Reliance on this report is granted to William Morrison (Cheltenham) Limited.

Job No. 4130/2

Page No. 2

2 BACKGROUND SETTING 2.1 Full details are presented in Phase 1 desk study report 4130 to which reference should

be made, although salient details are provided below. Centred on National Grid Reference 396510-221590 the site is located in the Battledown district of Cheltenham and comprises a roughly rectangular shaped plot of land, covering an area of 4.19 hectares accessed via Oakhurst Rise to the west. The site is bounded to the south by St Edwards School and by residential development on all other sides. The site comprises two, grass-surfaced fields, separated by a row of mature trees comprising predominantly oak with occasional ash and hawthorn, with similar vegetation found around the site perimeter, also locally including cedar, pine and conifer. In the central eastern part of the site was evidence of a recent bonfire as well as a tree (oak) covered earth mound representing the location of a former ice house, whilst a pond was also identified within the north-eastern site boundary. A selection of photographs is presented in the Phase 1 report, replicated in Appendix 1 of this report for ease of reference.

2.2 Historical research suggests that the site has always comprised, largely unoccupied,

presumably agricultural land from the earliest available mapping (1886) to the present day; during that time the site has been locally occupied by an ice house and suspected shed(s) / stable(s). With the exception of recent bonfire residues, there was no visual evidence of any contamination / impaction within the site, although there exists a potential risk (albeit low) of migrating landfill gas derived from the nearby (off-site; 115-120m west) historic landfill and/or suspected infilled ponds.

2.3 Geologically the site is underlain by the Charmouth Mudstone Formation (clay near-

surface, which grades to mudstone with depth), which the EA classifies as a Secondary Undifferentiated (non) aquifer. There are no groundwater abstractors or discharge consents allocated to the site, and it does not fall within a Groundwater Source Protection Zone.

2.4 Based upon desk study researches, the preliminary risk assessment and conceptual

site model identified the following principal contaminants of concern:

• Toxic and phytotoxic metals

• Hydrocarbon compounds (predominantly PAH and TPH)

• Organochlorine and Organophosphorous Insecticides

• Asbestos fibres/fragments

Job No. 4130/2

Page No. 3

• Methane / Carbon dioxide

• Naturally elevated sulphates

2.5 Based upon the proposed residential end use for the site the critical receptor is

identified as a female child, age class 0 – 6, and our assessment has been progressed on this basis.

2.6 Given the above and preceding discussions intrusive ground investigation has been

undertaken, with exploratory holes targeted to reflect both former/existing site usage though also to provide overall site coverage in light of the proposed redevelopment. The scope of contamination testing has been based upon the above list of determinands, applied to soil samples only (in the absence of groundwater). All results are presented in standard summary tables in Appendix 3, and have been incorporated into an appropriate risk assessment to determine risk levels to the obvious receptors in the form of future site occupants and groundwater quality, as well as those less obvious such as buildings and infrastructure, such that any necessary remedial measures can be identified and recommended to ensure that the redeveloped site will be “fit for purpose”.

3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 3.1 It is proposed to develop land off Oakhurst Rise in Battledown, Cheltenham to

comprise a residential-led end use, although a definitive development proposal is yet to be finalised.

4 GROUND INVESTIGATION REPORT Site Works 4.1 The Phase 2 intrusive investigation was undertaken on 2nd February 2017 using a

combination of window-sample borehole drilling and trial pitting. The number and location of all exploratory hole positions were selected by this Practice in order to obtain overall coverage across the site as well as target any features identified during Phase 1 researches, and were marked out on site using on and off-site reference

Job No. 4130/2

Page No. 4

points; their positions are indicated on drawing 4130/2/2. Following a review of buried services plans, a CAT electrical scanner was deployed and hand-excavated inspection pits carried out prior to all boreholes; no buried services were encountered during the works. Due to the reported presence of a buried service (electricity cable – precise position later located and proven to be redundant; approximate route shown on drawing 4130/2/2) through the centre of the site, investigation using mechanical plant was restricted in this area.

4.2 Six windowless-sample boreholes (WS1 – WS6) were drilled to depths of between

2.39m and 3.45m using a Terrier 2002 window-sampling rig. The boreholes were logged by an engineering geologist from this Practice in accordance with Eurocode 7 (BS EN ISO 14688-1:2002 and 14688-2:2004), and representative samples taken for geotechnical testing as appropriate. In order to assess the relative density of the material penetrated in-situ standard penetration tests (SPTs) were carried out in all boreholes at 1m depth increments, and the resulting N values (uncorrected) are indicated on the respective borehole logs. Following completion of logging and sampling five of the six boreholes (WS1, WS2 and WS4-WS6) were installed with gas/water monitoring wells with response zones between 1.0m and 3.0m depth as shown on the respective borehole logs.

4.3 Gas/water monitoring visits were undertaken on 10 February, 23 February and 27

February, the results of which are presented in Appendix 5 and discussed in Section 7.

4.4 Boreholes were supplemented by fourteen trial pits, excavated using a combination of

mechanical plant and hand-digging methods, used to establish the near-surface ground conditions and obtain samples for contamination analysis. Pits were logging in accordance with EC7 with findings presented in Appendix 2.

4.5 Falling head tests were undertaken at five exploratory hole positions (WS1 – WS3,

TP9 and TP11 in order to establish the infiltration potential of the ground; results are presented graphically on the logs and discussed in Section 6 of this report.

Laboratory Testing - Geotechnical

4.6 A number of disturbed samples were taken for routine geotechnical classification

testing, comprising moisture content and plasticity determinations, along with classification to the Unified Soil Classification Scheme (USCS) and NHBC Standards,

Job No. 4130/2

Page No. 5

plus acidity and sulphate analysis to BRE Special Digest 1 requirements. Results are tabulated below.

TABLE 1: MOISTURE CONTENT AND INDEX TEST RESULTS AND CLASSIFICATION

BH No

Depth (m)

Sample of

Moisture Content

(%)

Liquid Limit (%)

Plastic Limit (%)

Plasticity Index

Plasticity/USCS

Consistency Index

<425um (%)

Modified PI

Volume Change Potential (NHBC)

WS1 2.5 CMF 27 57 26 31 CH 0.97 100 31 Medium

WS2 0.5 CMF 35 70 24 46 CH/CV 0.76 99 46 High

WS2 1.5 CMF 27 62 24 38 CH 0.92 100 38 Medium

WS3 1.8 CMF 22 50 25 25 CI/CH 1.12 100 25 Medium

WS3 2.8 CMF 22 51 24 27 CH 1.07 100 27 Medium

WS4 1.2 CMF 23 53 24 29 CH 1.03 100 29 Medium

WS5 2.5 CMF 17 45 21 24 CI 1.17 100 24 Medium

WS6 1.0 CMF 30 62 26 36 CH 0.89 100 36 Medium

WS6 2.0 CMF 27 58 25 33 CH 0.94 100 33 Medium

Classification to EN ISO 14688-2:2004 CMF: Charmouth Mudstone Formation

TABLE 2: CHEMICAL TEST RESULTS AND CLASSIFICATION

BH No

Depth (m)

Sample of

Water soluble

sulphate SO4 (g/l)

pH value in soil

Total sulphate

SO4 (%)

Total sulphur

(%)

Total potential sulphate

SO4 (%)

Oxidisable Sulphides

SO4 (%)

Overall classification according to BRE Special Digest 1

(2005)

DS ACEC

WS2 1.0 CMF 0.065 5.6 0.04 <0.05 <0.15 <0.11 DS-1 AC-1

WS2 2.0 CMF 0.018 6.9 0.01 <0.05 <0.15 <0.14 DS-1 AC-1

WS2 3.0 CMF <0.01 7.5 0.02 <0.05 <0.15 <0.13 DS-1 AC-1

WS6 0.5 CMF 0.01 6.8 0.02 <0.05 <0.15 <0.13 DS-1 AC-1

WS6 1.5 CMF 0.049 6.4 0.03 <0.05 <0.15 <0.12 DS-1 AC-1

WS6 2.5 CMF 0.01 7.1 <0.01 <0.05 <0.15 <0.14 DS-1 AC-1

CMF: Charmouth Mudstone Formation

4.7 A single representative composite sample of near surface material (0.3 – 1.5m depth)

taken from trial pits across the site was subject to compaction analysis; the resulting compaction curve is presented in Figure 1 below with implications discussed in Section 5.

Job No. 4130/2

Page No. 6

FIG 1: MOISTURE CONTENT -v- DRY DENSITY (0.3 – 1.5m)

Laboratory Testing - Contamination

4.8 The contamination sampling scheme was conducted in accordance with BS10175:2011, with sampling providing general spatial coverage across the site (no definitive proposed layout available) as well as addressing the historic land use. All test results have been incorporated into an appropriate risk assessment to determine risk levels to the receptors, such that any necessary remedial measures can be identified and recommended to ensure that the proposed development site is “fit for use”.

4.9 Representative samples of topsoil and natural undisturbed soil taken from the upper

1.0m of extracted ground were sent to UKAS accredited Scientific Analysis Laboratories in Manchester where analysis selectively comprised the Contaminants of Concern presented in Section 2.4 of this report.

Job No. 4130/2

Page No. 7

4.10 The potential risk to groundwater resources was determined by leachate analysis upon

samples of near surface made ground (TP8/0.0m) and topsoil (TP5/0.5m), which were tested to determine the leachable content of toxic and phytotoxic metals, and selectively PAH compounds.

4.11 The certified laboratory test results are presented in Appendix 3 and for convenience

these have also been summarised to facilitate comparison against relevant assessment criteria. All results and their implications upon the preliminary CSM are further discussed in Sections 7 and 8.

Discussion on Ground Conditions 4.12 The boreholes have shown natural ground conditions to be commensurate with

geological mapping, with all exploratory hole positions proving clay / weathered mudstone of the CMF overlain by a veneer of topsoil with only localised surface made ground. A summary of the observed strata from this investigation is presented in Table 3 below, although for specific descriptions of ground conditions, reference should be made to the exploratory hole logs presented in Appendix 2.

TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF OBSERVED STRATA

Stratum Base Depth

(m) Notes

MADE GROUND: surface bonfire residue (TP8) or scattered brick/concrete/stone (TP10)

0.0 – 0.02 Encountered in

TP8 and TP10 only

TOPSOIL: brown / greyish-brown, slightly silty clay topsoil containing roots/rootlets

0.05 – 0.5 Encountered in

all exploratory holes

CLAY: generally firm becoming stiff khaki-brown mottled grey and orange, becoming bluish-grey, plastic and fissured clay (Charmouth Mudstone Formation)

>0.5 - >3.45 Encountered in all exploratory holes

Roots and Desiccation

Roots: 0.25 – 1.6m depth across entire site

Desiccation: N/A – none visually identified

Perched water (seepages / strikes)

N/A

Groundwater

TP3/1.0m – minor seepage Monitoring results: WS1: 1.04 – 1.7m WS2: 0.22 – 0.7m

WS4: 0.72 – 1.32m WS5: 0.68 – 1.1m WS6: 0.32 – 0.5m

Job No. 4130/2

Page No. 8

4.13 Made ground was encountered above surface topsoil in TP8 (bonfire residue including

ash, charcoal, wood, nails and metals door frames/latches/hinges) and TP10 (surface debris of brick, stone and concrete at former outbuilding/stable position). Other than the localised ash/charcoal content of the surface bonfire residue, there was no visual or olfactory evidence to suggest the presence of potentially contaminated soils in any of the exploratory holes. TP13 was excavated into the side of the earth mound at the position of the ice house; that excavation recorded topsoil over stiff clay before excavation was terminated within heavily rooted soils. There was no evidence of any remnant structure / void associated with the ice house, indeed archaeological findings reportedly noted that this feature was historically infilled in the interests of safety.

4.14 Topsoil comprising slightly organic, slightly silty clay was found at surface across the

entire site, containing fine roots / rootlets. In TP12 (excavated adjacent to an existing small pond) this was interspersed with light brown silty clay, suggesting that the larger pond historically mapped at this location has shrunk in size probably as a result of naturally ‘drying/silting-up’, rather than being actively infilled.

4.15 Beneath surface topsoil, generally firm becoming stiff khaki-brown, mottled grey and

orange becoming bluish-grey, plastic, fissured clay, was encountered across the entire site up to a proven depth of 3.45m, representing mapped CMF deposits. With reference to Table 1, laboratory index testing on samples taken from depths of between 0.5m and 2.8m classifies this material as intermediate to high (locally very high) plasticity clay of predominantly medium volume change potential in accordance with NHBC Standards. Consistency index (CI) values of generally between 0.76 and 1.03 suggest no apparent/significant desiccation across the main body of the site, with slightly higher values (1.12 in WS3/1.8m and 1.07 in WS3/2.8m) possibly attributable to a marginally lower moisture content imposed by surrounding vegetation (nearby leylandii conifers), although there was no visible evidence of desiccated soil.

4.16 With reference to Table 3, rooted soils were visually recorded across the entire site, at

depths of generally between 0.25m and 1.6m; desiccation was notably visibly absent across the site.

4.17 SPTs were undertaken in accordance with BS EN ISO 22476-3:2005 to assess the

relative density of the material penetrated; normalised ‘N60’-values are plotted against depth in Fig 2 below.

Job No. 4130/2

Page No. 9

FIG 2: SPT ‘N60’ VALUE -v- DEPTH

4.18 A minor groundwater seepage was recorded in only one position (TP3/1.0m), with

post-investigation water monitoring in WS1, WS2 and WS4-WS6 (response zones between 1.0m and 3.0m depth) recording variable depths of between 0.22m (WS2 10/2/17) and 1.7m (WS1 27/2/17); results are presented in Appendix 5.

4.19 Perched/groundwater levels are of course subject to seasonal fluctuation according to

prevailing weather conditions, and the situation encountered and described above could potentially change in the future, especially in a period of seemingly ever-apparent but unpredictable climate change.

5 GEOTECHNICAL MODEL AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FOUNDATION

DESIGN 5.1 Beneath a veneer of topsoil and localised surface made ground, site investigations

have proven ground conditions to comprise clay “bedrock” of the Charmouth Mudstone Formation. Preliminary development proposals are thought to comprise the construction of approximately one hundred dwellings (mixed detached, semi-detached and flats), although in the absence of a finalised, approved design layout or definitive information pertaining to proposed building structure and/or anticipated design loads etc, foundation recommendations at this stage are therefore relatively

Job No. 4130/2

Page No. 10

generic, based upon assumed/envisaged methods of construction within the ground conditions encountered.

5.2 Foundations should be constructed through any localised softer or disturbed deposits

(including any made ground etc) to found in undisturbed, natural material, subject to also penetrating any rooted and/or desiccated soils (refer to table 3). Concerning the latter, whilst there was no visual evidence of desiccation recorded during the ground investigation, laboratory analysis of samples from BH3 at 1.8m and 2.8m depth suggest the potential for desiccation, albeit mild, and given that this can vary seasonally we would advocate precautionary pitting/sampling shortly before building construction to check the moisture content of the ground for plots proximal to vegetated boundaries.

5.3 On the basis of the foregoing foundations should be constructed on/within natural

CMF deposits, classified by laboratory index testing as intermediate to high plasticity clay of predominantly medium volume change potential in accordance with NHBC Standards. A minimum founding depth of 0.9m below existing ground level is required in medium shrinkage soils, with localised deepening as necessary (refer to preceding paragraph) and/or address type and proximity of surrounding vegetation. Founding depths, calculated in line with NHBC guidance, can be confirmed following finalization of the development layout.

5.4 Design calculations in Eurocode 7 (BS EN 1997-1) require the establishment of design

values for actions, ground properties and ground resistances, definition of the limits that must not be exceeded (usually a serviceability limit state), the setting up of calculation models for the relevant ultimate or serviceability limit state, and showing by such calculation that these limits will not be exceeded. Design values for such calculations are derived by applying partial factors to characteristic values for actions, ground properties and ground resistances, and based upon the foregoing geotechnical model and following the requirements of Design Approach 1, both Combination 1 and Combination 2 calculations have been undertaken.

5.5 BS EN 1997-2:2007 and BS EN ISO 22475-1:2006 require quality class 1 samples for

determination of soil strength, and such samples can only be obtained by category A sampling methods. To avoid the costly complexities of such sampling in-situ tests can alternatively be undertaken, the borehole standard penetration test (SPT) being the most commonly adopted method. Field results are adjusted or ‘normalised’ in accordance with Eurocode requirements (BS EN ISO 22476-9:2009), to generate

Job No. 4130/2

Page No. 11

characteristic values of undrained shear strength that can then be used for determination of bearing resistance as described above.

5.6 With reference to the borehole logs and results presented in Fig 2, assuming a

minimum 0.9m founding depth and a conventional two-storey residential line load of 45kN/m (suspended ground floor slab), the design bearing resistance for a 0.6m wide strip/trench-fill foundation is estimated to be approximately 81kN/m2, which exceeds the likely bearing pressure and confirms suitability. Similar calculations also demonstrate suitability for 0.45m wide foundations at this depth (61kN/m2). Design bearing resistance is plotted against depth in Figure 3 below.

FIG 3: DESIGN BEARING RESISTANCE -v- DEPTH

5.7 For those buildings within the zone of influence of trees, NHBC requires the adoption

of heave protection measures comprising compressible board on the internal face of all external foundations (leaving the bottom 0.5m unprotected). Whilst desiccation was not visually identified, in view of the presence of rooted soils across the entire site and the associated potential for future seasonal development of desiccation within clayey near-surface soils, suspended ground floor slabs (incorporating minimum void under slab of 250mm for pre-cast concrete or timber) are recommended at this stage.

5.8 In view of the results of acidity and soluble sulphate testing, buried concrete in spread

foundations can adopt a classification of Design Sulphate Class DS-1 and Aggressive Chemical Class AC-1 in accordance with BRE Special Digest 1 (2005) i.e. no enhanced concrete grade required.

0.00.30.50.81.01.31.51.82.02.32.52.83.0

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300

Dept

h (m

)

Design Bearing Resistance (kN/m2)

0.45m wide strip 0.6m wide strip

Job No. 4130/2

Page No. 12

5.9 With regard to road/pavement design, the results of laboratory index analysis on near-

surface samples, compared to Highways Agency Interim Advice Note 73/06, Rev 1 (2009), indicate a CBR value of circa 2.5-3% for the near-surface weathered CMF; this is concordant with this Practice’s experience of similar testing in the area. As always it is recommended that in-situ CBR testing be carried out closer to the time of construction to obtain a more accurate site-specific design value. The CMF is unlikely to be frost-susceptible, although the Local Authority should be able to advise based upon their previous experience in the area.

5.10 Given the possibility that site arisings may be used in constructing landscaped

areas, the following gives outline recommendations on material suitability for incorporation into earthworks. A light hammer compaction test upon a composite sample of natural clay (weathered CMF) derived from all trial pits at 0.3 – 1.5m depth indicates that a maximum dry density of 1500kg/m3 can be achieved at an optimum moisture content (OMC) of 29%, whilst the natural moisture content was recorded at 33%. On the assumption that excavated materials would be recompacted to 95% of the maximum dry density (MDD), the relatively open compaction curve gives a moisture content range of between 21% and 34% to achieve 95% MDD or greater. Review of the moisture content test results from this investigation indicates that nearly all samples fall within this range, with only limited requirement for interim wetting or drying in order to raise/reduce the moisture content to within acceptable limits before use as part of an earthworks operation. This excludes any effects resulting from temporary stockpiling of arisings prior to re-use.

5.11 Alternatively if method specification compaction were to be carried out, the clay

deposits encountered would probably classify as Class 2B in accordance with the Highways Agency Specification for Highway Works (Series 600 - Earthworks), and the appropriate method could then be adopted.

Recommendations for Monitoring of Ground Conditions During Earthworks 5.12 Notwithstanding the apparent absence of significant made ground across the site, in

view of the importance of founding on natural ground, a careful watch must be maintained during all foundation excavations to ensure that this requirement has been satisfied.

Job No. 4130/2

Page No. 13

5.13 Despite a minor seepage in TP3 at 1.0m depth, all remaining holes remained during

investigation. Post investigation monitoring in five of the six boreholes (WS1, WS2 and WS4-WS6; response zones between 1.0m and 3.0m) has recorded standing water levels varying between 0.22m (WS2 on 10/2/17) and 1.7m (WS1 on 27/2/17) depth (refer to Appendix 5). On one monitoring visit (27/2/17), boreholes were purged of water and the resultant recharge measured some 17 hours later, whereby proportionally deeper standing water levels were recorded across the site (refer to results in Appendix 5). The above should be borne in mind during foundation excavation/construction; if/where water seepages are anticipated in advance of foundation excavation, a pre-construction dewatering programme could be considered, although this is unlikely to be required in this instance. Notwithstanding, all foundations should be cast as soon as possible after excavation; minor seepages would be best dealt with by sump type pumping, possibly used in conjunction with shoring equipment to maintain pit wall stability where necessary.

5.14 Consideration should also be given to access into/around the site and particularly

haulage road construction, since the surface soils have the potential to be subject to extensive softening during periods of sustained wet weather.

5.15 Inspection should ensure that no root activity or evidence of desiccation is visible at

foundation depth. 5.16 In the event of any doubt in the above matters, this Practice would be pleased to attend

site as instructed. 6 SOAKAWAY DRAINAGE 6.1 Soakaway testing, performed as falling head tests, was carried out at five positions

(WS1 - WS3, TP9 and TP11) within natural CMF to depths of between 1.06m and 2.0m depth. Whilst the methodology, limited test duration and lack of repeat tests does not strictly comply with minimum BRE365 requirements, in practice results have been found to be comparable with full scale testing, given that the subsequent calculations are undertaken in accordance with BRE guidance. The raw field data is presented on the individual logs (refer to Appendix 2) and summary results are tabulated below.

Job No. 4130/2

Page No. 14

TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS

BH/TP No.

Test No.

Test Response Zone (m)

Calculated Soil Infiltration Rate (m/sec)

WS1 1 1.0 – 2.0 N/A

(slight rise in level, probably attributable to seepage from saturated topsoil)

WS2 1 1.05 – 2.0 N/A (nil infiltration)

WS3 1 0.85 – 2.0 N/A (nil infiltration)

TP9 1 0.65 – 1.2 3.1 x 10-7

TP11 1 0.68 – 1.06 N/A (nil infiltration)

6.2 With reference to the above table, the general lack of infiltration is typical of the CMF,

which in this Practice’s experience, acts as a generally impermeable unit. Despite derivation of an infiltration rate (by extrapolation), calculations suggest that water in TP9 would not drain to 50% storage capacity within 24 hours in line with minimum BRE365 requirements. The above results should be provided to a specialist drainage engineer for their assessment, although given the site-wide, proven poor drainage potential, it is recommended that alternative drainage options be considered; in conjunction with alternative measures such as rainwater harvesting, porous paving/driveways and attenuation ponds etc, this may involve the transmission of surface water run-off to existing drainage networks and/or existing watercourse(s). In the case of the latter prior approval should be sought from the local regulatory authorities.

7 CONTAMINATION RISK ASSESSMENT Human Health 7.1 The contamination risk assessment has been carried out in general accordance with

the methodology described within Appendix 3. Table 5 below presents a comparison of laboratory test results with guideline values (LQM/CIEH S4UL). The ‘deterministic’ CLEA software model (Version 1.07) has been used to generate Tier 2 site-specific assessment criteria (SSACs) as necessary, based upon contamination test results from this investigation.

Job No. 4130/2

Page No. 15

TABLE 5: COMPARISON OF SOIL CHEMICAL TEST RESULTS WITH GUIDELINE VALUES

Determinant Maximum Measured

Concentration

LQM/CIEH S4UL

Residential with plant

uptake (mg/kg)

Tests Undertaken

(No.)

Exceedances(No.)

Notes

Arsenic 24 37 22 0

Cadmium <1 11 22 0

Chromium 62 910* 22 0

Lead 1900 200** 22 3 TP8 0.0m, TP10/0.1m and TP10/0.5m

Mercury <1 40 22 0

Selenium <3 250 22 0

Nickel 38 180 22 0

Copper 44 2,400 22 0

Zinc 300 3,700 22 0

Naphthalene <0.2 5.6 3 0

Fluorene <0.2 400 3 0

Benzo(a)Pyrene <0.2 3 3 0

Fluoranthene <0.2 560 3 0

Pyrene <0.2 1200 3 0

Benzo(a)anthracene <0.2 11 3 0

Chrysene <0.2 22 3 0

Benzo(b)fluoranthene <0.2 3.3 3 0

Benzo(k)fluoranthene <0.2 93 3 0

TPH C8 – C10 3 65*** 2 0

TPH C10 – C12 <1 180*** 2 0

TPH C12 – C16 3 330*** 2 0

TPH C16 – C21 12 540*** 2 0

TPH C21 – C35 89 1500*** 2 0

Aldrin <0.01 6.6 1 0

Dieldrin <0.01 2 1 0

Endosulphan <0.01 17 1 0

Hexachlorocyclohexane <0.01 0.2 1 0

Dichlorvos <0.01 0.066 1 0

Notes:

* assumed all chromium on site is in trivalent form

** provisional C4SL

*** most sensitive fraction within wider TPH band

based upon SOM of 2.5%

Job No. 4130/2

Page No. 16

7.2 It will be seen from the above table and summary sheet in Appendix 3 that, with the

exception of lead, concentrations of all individual metals fall below Tier 1 C4SL/S4UL levels. With specific regards to lead, two minor elevations (270mg/kg and 230mg/kg) were both found in TP10 at 0.1m and 0.5m respectively, with a larger concentration (1900mg/kg) found in the bonfire residue at TP9/0.0m, all exceeding the C4SL of 200mg/kg. Statistical analysis identifies these values as outliers from the main sample population, suggesting “hotspots” of contamination, for which remedial measures will be necessary where such material plots within an area of future garden / soft-landscaping. This could take the form of selective removal or perhaps adoption of a clean-cover system; options are further discussed in Section 8. Concerning the remaining samples, progression to a Tier 2 assessment is considered unnecessary, with no requirement for further assessment or consideration of remedial measures to address metals concentrations.

7.3 Speciated PAH analysis carried out on samples of bonfire residue (TP8/0.0m),

underlying topsoil (TP8/0.2m) and natural clay containing suspected organic mottling/fragments, record Benzo(a)Pyrene concentrations (main risk driver) below the Tier 1 S4UL value of 3mg/kg, indicating no apparent requirement for remedial measures to address potential human health risk. All other individual (speciated) determinands are similarly negligible (all below limits of detection), with the low levels of Naphthalene in all samples indicating no specific requirement for the adoption of hydrocarbon vapour-proof membranes in proposed construction.

7.4 Despite there being no visual or olfactory evidence of hydrocarbon impaction recorded

in any of the exploratory holes, precautionary TPH screen analysis was undertaken upon a sample of near-surface topsoil (TP5/0.1m) and disturbed topsoil (TP10/0.1m) in order to assess the potential presence of hydrocarbons associated with possible fuel/oil leaks from the potential historic use of agricultural machinery and/or storage of machinery / fuel/ oil in former sheds/stables (TP10). Insignificant TPH concentrations of <1mg/kg to 89mg/kg have been recorded; with reference to the above table it will be seen that all concentrations fall below S4UL threshold values for the respective carbon bands. There is therefore considered to be no envisaged TPH risk with no requirement for further analysis or remedial measures to address potential human health risk.

7.5 In view of the historic/existing agricultural land use, a single sample (TP1/0.4m) was

subject to organochlorine and organophosphorous insecticide analysis. Concentrations of all individual determinands fall below limits of detection and also

Job No. 4130/2

Page No. 17

individual S4UL threshold values (where reported) indicating no apparent insecticide residues and hence no associated potential human health risk.

7.6 Precautionary asbestos screen analysis was undertaken on sample TP10/0.1m, at the

position of former suspected sheds/stables. Whilst demolition type rubble was recorded at surface, there was no visual evidence of asbestos containing material (ACM), and this is confirmed in the results of the laboratory analysis (non-detect).

Landfill Gas and Radon Gas 7.7 The Preliminary Conceptual Site Model presented in the Phase 1 report identified an

off-site landfill (115-120m to the west) and suspected infilled ponds (0.0 – 100m west). Whilst risk of gas migration to the site is considered extremely low (by virtue of the cohesive / clay geology), as a precaution gas monitoring wells were installed in five of the six boreholes, with subsequent monitoring performed on three occasions, where possible during optimum periods of low/rapidly-falling atmospheric pressure; results are presented in Appendix 5. It is worthy of note at this point that excavation around the existing pond (TP12) suggests no evidence of historic infilling; instead it appears that the formerly larger pond has simply shrunk / silted-up.

7.8 The landfill gas risk assessment has been undertaken in general accordance with

BS8485:2015 “Code of practice for the design of protective measures for methane and carbon dioxide ground gases for new buildings”, and with reference to Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) 665: ‘Assessing risks posed by hazardous ground gases to buildings’ (2015).

7.9 As shown in Appendix 5, results record low levels of carbon dioxide (0.0 – 0.8%), nil

methane and nil/negligible flow (0.0 – 0.3l/hr). 7.10 On this basis the implied maximum characteristic gas situation (CS) is derived by

consideration of the maximum hazardous gas flow rate calculated from each single monitoring well during the recent monitoring rounds. Calculations record a site CS (or Gas Screening Value GSV) of 0.0024 l/hr, which is the worst-case for methane and carbon dioxide. This equates to a CS1 classification indicating a very low hazard potential. The proposed residential development classifies as a Type A (high risk) building, which combined with the CS1 classification generates a gas protection score of 0, indicating that no protective measures are needed. The LPA may require additional readings in order to expand the dataset and confirm the foregoing.

Job No. 4130/2

Page No. 18

7.11 With regards to radon, British Geological Survey data indicates that no radon

protection measures are necessary within new construction at this site, although it is recommended that minimum required levels of protection be discussed with local building control.

Controlled Waters 7.12 It will be seen from Appendix 3 that, with the exception of very minor arsenic and

cadmium concentrations, there are no recorded/significant elevations of toxic/phytotoxic metals of PAH compounds exceeding WFD EQS or UK DWS levels. Despite these minor elevations, in view of the secondary undifferentiated (non) aquifer status of the bedrock geology, the lack of recorded groundwater abstractions within/close to the site, and that the site is not located in a groundwater source protection zone, pre-construction remedial measures in respect of controlled waters are considered unnecessary.

Waste Classification for Off-site Disposal of Arisings 7.13 In accordance with current legislation all soil arisings generated for disposal as part of

this development site are by definition a "commercial waste" and will be classified as both a directive and a controlled waste. In view of the proposed construction and hence likely derivation of excavated arisings for off-site disposal, then as per the European Waste Catalogue (EWC) such material will be coded 1705, that is "soil (including excavated soil from contaminated sites), stones and dredging spoil".

7.14 In accordance with Technical Guidance Waste Management 2 (TGWM2, EA Version

3, May 2013) the contamination test results obtained for that material have been compared with respective threshold data as set out in TGWM2 in order that this specific waste stream can be classified. As shown in Appendix 4, this material would be classified as a "Non-hazardous Mirror Entry" under EWC Code 170504 (soil and stones that do not contain the tested dangerous substances above the respective threshold value). Site arisings can therefore be disposed of at a non-hazardous landfill site.

7.15 The foregoing has been supplemented by a single WAC test (performed upon a

sample of composite arisings); the results, presented in Appendix 4, suggest that site arisings should classify as inert waste (EWC Code 17-05-04), although it is recommended that clarification be sought concerning the acidity and loss-on-ignition

Job No. 4130/2

Page No. 19

of the material. As always it is recommended that results be provided to the receiving landfill operator, since the acceptance/classification of waste is at their discretion.

Water Supply Pipework 7.16 In addition to the foregoing consideration has been given to the potential effects of

recorded concentrations on new water utility pipework, by comparison to generic guidance as set out in the UK Water Industry Research (UK WIR) report ‘Guidance for the Selection of Water Supply Pipes to be Used in Brownfield Sites’ (2010). At face recorded concentrations are unlikely to necessitate "toxic preventative measures" (i.e. upgrading of water supply pipework to a barrier pipe such as ‘Protectaline’ or similar), although it is recommended that advice be sought from the local regulatory authority / water provider prior to ordering pipework.

8 REFINED CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL AND PRELIMINARY REMEDIAL

RECOMMENDATIONS 8.1 In view of the above discussions the Preliminary Conceptual Site Model has been

refined as shown in Figure 4 below. FIG 4: REFINED CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL

Job No. 4130/2

Page No. 20

TABLE 6: SUMMARY OF IDENTIFIED/POTENTIAL POLLUTANT LINKAGES

Potential Sources Pathways

Receptors Comments Refined Risk

Rating Remedial / Mitigation Requirements R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6

ON-SITE

S1

P1 X

Laboratory soil analysis generally indicates no apparent/significant risk to human health or controlled waters Localised elevations of lead in TP10

and TP8 require consideration of remedial measures

Low - Moderate

Excavation and removal of offending material where found to be coincident with future gardens / soft landscaping

(TBC) OR

Use of ‘clean’ site-won topsoil as a cover-system; topsoil thickness of

200mm required at TP10 location and 550mm at TP8 (bonfire) location,

based upon recorded concentrations

P2 X X

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

OFF-SITE

S2

P1

No evidence of elevated gas concentrations during monitoring

visits; potential gas migration therefore discounted as viable risk

Very Low N/A

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6 X X

P7

SOURCES S1 Elevated lead concentrations in TP8/0.0m, TP10/0.1m and TP10/0.5m

S2 Methanogenic gas migration from infilled quarry (former refuse tip) 115m west, or made ground 100m south (playing fields) or off-site infilled ponds

PATHWAYS

P1 Direct dermal contact or ingestion via soil attached to vegetables

P2 Inhalation of dust and vapours

P3 Permeation into new water supply pipework

P4 Vertical leaching of leachable contaminants in unsaturated zone and lateral migration in saturated zone

P5 Direct contact with high sulphate-bearing clay

P6 Landfill gas migration through unsaturated zone and accumulation within confined spaces

P7 Radon gas migration through unsaturated zone and accumulation within confined spaces

RECEPTORS

R1 Future site occupants

R2 Potable water supply

R3 Groundwater (CMF classified as secondary undifferentiated – non - aquifer)

R4 Surface waters (closest is pond coincident with north-eastern site boundary)

R5 Proposed site buildings incl. concrete foundations

R6 Adjacent site users/occupants

Job No. 4130/2

Page No. 21

8.2 In summary, with the exception of very localised lead contamination (TP8 and TP10 only), the findings of the foregoing quantitative contamination risk assessment indicate that the site is effectively uncontaminated, where there is no perceived risk to human health and similarly no significant risk to controlled waters. The hotspots of lead can be dealt with using simple remediation techniques comprising the selective excavation and removal of the offending material where it is found to coincide with an area of proposed garden / soft-landscaping, or by the adoption of a clean cover system. Once development proposals have been finalised a Remediation Strategy should be compiled setting out the intended remediation approach.

8.3 In line with best industry practice the scope of contamination testing has been based

upon the site history, proposed land usage and actual findings, with reference where necessary to DoE Industry Profiles and DEFRA/EA guidance. To the best of our knowledge information concerning the land quality assessment is accurate at the date of issue, however subsurface conditions including ground contamination may vary spatially and with time. There may be conditions pertaining to the site not disclosed by the above sources of information which might have a bearing upon the recommendations made, were such conditions known. We have however used our professional judgement in order to limit this during the investigation.

8.4 The conclusions and recommendations made in respect of land quality do not address

any potential risks to site operatives or ground workers during the construction stage. These issues should be addressed by the Principal Contractor in accordance with the relevant statutory procedures and regulations (CDM Regulations 2015).

8.5 It is important that these limitations be clearly recognised when the findings and

recommendations of this report are being interpreted. Additional assessment may be necessary should a significant delay occur between report date and implementation of the proposed scheme to which it relates.

9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9.1 The foregoing discussions and recommendations are based upon the results of a

detailed desk study supplemented by a combined borehole and trial pit investigation, which has recorded relatively consistent ground conditions across the site. Ground conditions may vary between investigation points however; hence a careful watch

Job No. 4130/2

Page No. 22

should be maintained for any abnormalities encountered during site strip etc, which might require referral back to this Practice.

9.2 Phase 1 researches indicate that the site has always comprised largely unoccupied,

presumably agricultural land from the earliest available mapping (1886) to the present day; during that time the site has been locally occupied by an ice house and suspected shed(s) / stables(s). With the exception of recent bonfire residues, there was no visual evidence of any contamination / impaction within the site.

9.3 Beneath a veneer of topsoil and localised surface made ground, the intrusive

investigation has proven a natural weathering profile of the Charmouth Mudstone Formation. Despite a general lack of groundwater encountered during site works, post investigation monitoring in five of the six boreholes drilled recorded standing water levels of between 0.22m (WS2, 10/2/17) and 1.7m (WS1, 27/2/17), although these accumulated over a period, and it is unlikely that quick and efficient trenching and foundation pouring should experience shallow water and/or instability.

9.4 It is recommended that conventional spread foundations can be constructed on/within

the undisturbed CMF at a minimum 0.9m founding depth, with localised deepening required to rooted/desiccated soils and where foundations fall within influencing distance of surrounding trees. Heave precautions will be required for buildings that plot within influencing distance of trees (layout as yet unknown), whilst suspended ground floor slabs should be adopted site-wide given the presence of rooted soils. This is discussed further in Section 5 along with consideration of design bearing resistance.

9.5 For all foundations a standard DS-1 / AC-1 concrete classification can be adopted i.e.

no enhanced specification required. 9.6 Falling head tests within selected exploratory holes have recorded nil/negligible

infiltration within the ground conditions encountered. Results and implications are discussed further in Section 6.

9.7 In terms of proposed access roads, CBR values of 2.5 - 3% have been derived for the

near-surface soils. It is recommended that in-situ testing be carried out at formation level prior to construction.

9.8 A detailed contamination risk assessment including toxic and phytotoxic metals, TPH,

PAH, asbestos and insecticide analysis indicates that the majority of the site is

Job No. 4130/2

Page No. 23

effectively uncontaminated, with only localised, generally minor lead contamination requiring consideration of remedial measures to address possible human health risk. This is discussed fully in Sections 7 and 8. There is no perceived risk to controlled waters.

9.9 Based upon the results of preliminary gas monitoring, undertaken in general

accordance with BS8485:2015 “Code of practice for the design of protective measures for methane and carbon dioxide ground gases for new buildings”, and with reference to Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) 665: ‘Assessing risks posed by hazardous ground gases to buildings’ (2015), a gas protection score of 0 is calculated, suggesting that no protective measures are needed in new construction at this site. It should be noted that the LPA may require supplementary monitoring in order to expand the dataset and confirm the foregoing. In line with BGS records no radon protection measures are necessary within new construction, although it is recommended that minimum required levels of protection be discussed with local building control.

9.10 Should offsite disposal of arisings be required, initial waste classification using

contamination test results suggests that site arisings would be classified as a "Non-hazardous Mirror Entry", and can therefore be disposed of at a non-hazardous landfill site. Supplementary WAC analysis suggests that site arisings should classify as inert waste (EWC Code 17-05-04), although it is recommended that clarification be sought concerning the acidity and loss-on-ignition of the material.

9.11 Should planning consent be subject to certain conditions, this report and attachments

should be lodged with the local planning authority, such that they can update their records.

9.12 The above recommendations must not be used in respect of any development differing

in any way from the proposals described in this report, without reference back to this Practice or to another geotechnical/geo-environmental specialist.

10 REFERENCES

Geotechnical

British Standards Institute, BS5930:2015 ‘Code of Practice for Ground Investigations’

Job No. 4130/2

Page No. 24

National House Building Council (NHBC) Standards: Chapter 4.2 ‘Building Near Trees’ (2016)

BS EN 14688: ‘Geotechnical Investigation and Testing - Identification and Classification of Soil Part 1 Identification and Description’ (2002)

BS EN 14688: ‘Geotechnical Investigation and Testing - Identification and Classification of Soil Part 2 Principles for a Classification’ (2004)

BS EN 14689: ‘Geotechnical Investigation and Testing - Identification and Classification of Rock Part 1 Identification and Description’ (2003)

British Standards Institute, BS 1377: ‘British Standard Methods of Test for Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes’, Parts 1 - 9, (1990)

Highways Agency Document HD 25/94 Volume 7, Section 2, Part 2 ‘Pavement Design and Construction – Foundations‘ (1994)

Building Research Establishment (BRE) Special Digest 1 ‘Concrete in Aggressive Ground’ (2005)

British Geological Survey mapping Sheet SO92SE (1983)

Building Research Establishment (BRE) Digest 365 “Soakaway Design” (2007)

Department of Transport Series 600: ‘Specification for Earthworks’ (1991)

Environmental

British Standards Institute, BS 10175: ‘Code of Practice for the Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites’ (2011)

Environment Agency CLR 11: ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination’

Environment Agency/National House Building Council (NHBC) R&D 66 ‘Guidance for the Safe Development of Housing on Land Affected by Contamination’ (2000)

Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH)/Land Quality Management Limited (LQM). The LQM/CIEH ‘Generic Assessment Criteria for Human Health Risk Assessment’ (2nd Edition). Land Quality Press

Department of the Environment, Transport & the Regions: ‘The Environmental Protection Act 1990: Part IIA’ (2000)

Construction Industry Research & Information Association (CIRIA) 665: ‘Assessing Risks Posed by Hazardous Ground Gases to Buildings’ (2007)

British Standards Institute, BS8485: ‘Code of practice for the design of protective measures for methane and carbon dioxide ground gases for new buildings’ (2015)

Building Research Establishment (BRE): Radon – ‘Guidance on Protective Measures for New Buildings’ (2015)

Landmark Envirocheck Report including Historical Ordnance Survey Maps (Ref: 103238769_1_1 dated 2 November 2016)

The Water Framework Directive (Standards and Classification) Directions (England and Wales)’ (2015)

The Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2000 (Amendment) Regulations (2007)

Environment Agency (www.environment-agency.gov.uk)

Health Protection Agency (www.hpa.org.uk)

Zetica (www.zetica.com)

UK WIR report ‘Guidance for the Selection of Water Supply Pipes to be used in Brownfield Sites’ (2010)

LAND OFF OAKHURST RISE, CHELTENHAM

SITE LOCATION (based on Microsoft Bing Mapping)

Drawing No.Job No. Scale: Date:4130/2 4130/2/1 NTS 08-11-16

THESITENN

LAND OFF OAKHURST RISE, CHELTENHAM

EXISTING SITE LAYOUT (based upon Everitt Architects Limied drg. PL001, dated 05/10/2016) SHOWING WALKOVER ANNOTATIONS

Drawing No.Job No. Scale: Date:4130/2 4130/2/2 c 1:1000 @ A3 08-11-16

NN

recentbonfire

oak, cedar, pine

tree (oak) coveredearth mound - former

ice house

pond

slightly ‘hummocky’

P1

Number anddirection ofphotograph

(Appendix 1)P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

P8

P9

P10

TP1

TP2

TP3

TP4

TP5

TP6

TP7

TP8

TP9

TP10

TP11

TP13

WS1

WS2

WS3

WS4

WS5

WS6

TP14

mapped electricity cable (redundant?)

20m easem

ent for mechanical plant

pred

omin

atel

y oa

k, o

ccas

iona

l ash

and

haw

thor

n

badgersetts

pred

omin

atel

y oa

k, o

ccas

iona

l ash

and

haw

thor

n

conife

rs (le

ylandi)

oak, ash& cedar

oak

oak &ash

badgersetts

TP12

Job No. 4130/2

APPENDIX 1

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

Job No. 4130/2

Photograph P1

Photograph P2

Job No. 4130/2

Photograph P3

Photograph P4

Job No. 4130/2

Photograph P5

Photograph P6

Job No. 4130/2

Photograph P7

Photograph P8

Job No. 4130/2

Photograph P9

Photograph P10

Job No. 4130/2

APPENDIX 2

BOREHOLE AND TRIAL PIT LOGS

(INCUDING PHOTOGRAPHS)

36 Brunswick Road, Gloucester GL1 1JJTel: 01452 422843

Email: [email protected]

TRIAL PIT No.

TP1

Site:

Job No. Date Ground Level (c.m, AOD) Co-Ordinates (c.)

LAND TO THE NORTH OF ST EDWARDS SCHOOL, BATTLEDOWN, CHELTENHAM - PRELIMINARY

4130/2 02-02-17

Scale: Client Logged By:1:20 William Morrison (Cheltenham) Ltd SW

c 112m E 396,451 N 221,635

DETAILS OF SUBSOIL

A TOPSOIL: grass over soft mid brown/greyish brown,slightly silty, clay TOPSOIL with fine roots/rootlets

B CLAY: firm, khaki brown mottled grey and orange,plastic CLAY; fine rootlets to 0.5m depth(CHARMOUTH MUDSTONE FORMATION)

NOTES

1 Oak/ash field boundary 20m east of pit

2 Pit logged from surface; roots encountered at 0.5mdepth

3 Pit dry and stable

4 Soil sample taken at 0.4m depth

1.0

B

A

0.3-0.34

0 50 100 150

1.0

Apparent Shear Strength kN/m

2



TRIAL PIT No.

TP2

Site:



4130/2 02-02-17


C 108m E 396,402 N 221,619

0 50 100 150

1.0


2

DETAILS OF SUBSOIL

A TOPSOIL: grass over soft mid to light brown, slightlysilty, friable clay TOPSOIL with many fine grassrootlets

B SUBSOIL: probable firm, light orangish brown, silty,friable CLAY

C CLAY: firm to stiff, light grey mottled greyish brown,plastic CLAY with occasional fine roots (2mm)(CHARMOUTH MUDSTONE FORMATION)

NOTES

1 Hedgerow (occasional brambles) 15m west of pit




1.0

B

A

0.37

C

0.77-0.8



TRIAL PIT No.

TP3

Site:



4130/2 02-02-17


c 102m E 396,379 N 221,546

DETAILS OF SUBSOIL

A TOPSOIL: mid brown, silty CLAY and roots (2-5mm)

B CLAY: firm to stiff, light grey and khaki brownmottled orange, slightly silty, plastic CLAY; minorseepage from single gravel at base of pit(CHARMOUTH MUDSTONE FORMATION)

NOTES

1 Oak and cedar c 10m south of pit


3 Pit stable; minor groundwater seepage from singlegravel at base of pit


1.0

B

A

0.4

0 50 100 150

1.0


2



TRIAL PIT No.

TP4

Site:



4130/2 02-02-17


c 106m E 396,447 N 221,529

DETAILS OF SUBSOIL

A TOPSOIL: grass over, soft mid brown and slightlyorangish brown, silty, clay TOPSOIL with roots androotlets (1-25mm)

B CLAY: firm, khaki brown becoming grey mottledorange, plastic CLAY with occasional rootlets (to0.72m) and occaional to rare ironstone gravel(angular/tabular, medium to coarse)(CHARMOUTH MUDSTONE FORMATION)

NOTES

1 Oak/ash field boundary 10m west of pit




0.95

B

A

0.35

0 50 100 150

1.0


2



TRIAL PIT No.

TP5

Site:



4130/2 02-02-17


c 109m E 396,460 N 221,579

DETAILS OF SUBSOIL

A TOPSOIL: grass over, soft (and moist/wet) midbrown/greyish bown, silty clay TOPSOIL with finerootlets

B CLAY: firm, khaki brown, mottled light grey andorange, fissured plastic CLAY; below 0.7mpredomantly grey mottled orange(CHARMOUTH MUDSTONE FORMATION)

NOTES

1 Oak field boundary 12m west of pit

2 Pit logged from surface; roots encountered in topsoil



1.0

B

A

0.25

0 50 100 150

1.0


2



TRIAL PIT No.

TP6

Site:



4130/2 02-02-17


c 110m E 396,491 N 221,555

DETAILS OF SUBSOIL

A TOPSOIL: grass over, soft mid brown, silty clayTOPSOIL with many grass rootlets

B CLAY: firm, khaki brown and light grey, slightlymottled orange, fissured, plastic CLAY withoccasional ironstone gravel (subangular, medium) atc 0.45-0.6m depth and occasional organicmottly/fragments below 0.8m depth(CHARMOUTH MUDSTONE FORMATION)

NOTES




1.0

B

A

0.27-0.29

0 50 100 150

1.0


2



TRIAL PIT No.

TP7

Site:



4130/2 02-02-17


c 111m E 396,559 N 221,538

DETAILS OF SUBSOIL

A TOPSOIL: grass over, mid to light brown, silty, clayTOPSOIL with fine grass rootlets

B CLAY: firm becoming firm to stiff, khaki brown/grey,fissured plastic CLAY with occasional fine rootletsup to c 0.7m and occasional to rareironstone/mudstone gravel (subangular, medium tocoarse) at/below 0.8m depth(CHARMOUTH MUDSTONE FORMATION)

NOTES

1 Conifers c 15m southwest of pit




0.9

B

A

0.28-0.34

0 50 100 150

1.0


2



TRIAL PIT No.

TP8

Site:



4130/2 02-02-17


c 114m E 396,546 N 221,588

DETAILS OF SUBSOIL

A MADE GROUND: bonfire ash, charcoal, wood, nailsand metal door frame/latches/hinges

B TOPSOIL: soft, mid to light brown, silty clayTOPSOIL with fine grass rootlets

C CLAY: firm to stiff, light brown/orangish khaki brown,mottled light grey CLAY(CHARMOUTH MUDSTONE FORMATION)

NOTES



3 Soil samples taken at 0.0m and 0.2m depth

0 50 100 150

1.0


2

0.95

B

0.28

A 0.02

C



TRIAL PIT No.

TP9

Site:



4130/2 02-02-17


c 114m E 396,607 N 221,575

DETAILS OF SUBSOIL

A TOPSOIL: grass over mid to light brown, silty clayTOPSOIL with fine grass rootlets

B CLAY: firm to stiff, light khaki brown, mottled lightgrey and orange, fissured, plastic CLAY(CHARMOUTH MUDSTONE FORMATION)

NOTES



3 Soil samples taken at 1.0m depth

4 Pit excavated to enable percolation testing:Pit dimensions: 0.2 length x 0.2m width x 1.2mdepth

Test 1 Elapsed Depth(mins) (m)

0 0.653 0.6568 0.705143 0.755175 0.768

0 50 100 150

1.0


2

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Elapsed Time (mins)

Dep

th to

Wat

er (

m)

Test 1

1.2

B

0.6

A

0.36-0.38

falling head test(0.2m x 0.2m)

sump



TRIAL PIT No.

TP10

Site:



4130/2 02-02-17


c 112m E 396,636 N 221,561

B

0.6

A

0.22

DETAILS OF SUBSOIL

A TOPSOIL: surface debris of brick, stone andconcrete over grass over mid brown, silty clayTOPSOIL with many roots/rootlets; possiblydisturbed

B CLAY: probable stiff, light brown/khaki brownmottled orange, slightly silty, fissured/friable CLAYand roots/rootlets(CHARMOUTH MUDSTONE FORMATION)

NOTES

1 Oak and cedar <10m north and south of pit

2 Pit logged from surface; roots encounteredthroughout


4 Soil samples taken at 0.1m and 0.5m depth

0 50 100 150

1.0


2



TRIAL PIT No.

TP11

Site:



4130/2 02-02-17


c 122m E 396,579 N 221,630

DETAILS OF SUBSOIL

A TOPSOIL: grass over mid brown, silty clayTOPSOIL with roots/rootlets (2-4mm)

B CLAY: firm to stiff becoming stiff, khaki brownmottled light grey and orange CLAY; below 0.7m,predominatly grey, stiff and fissured(CHARMOUTH MUDSTONE FORMATION)

NOTES



3 Soil samples taken at 0.1m depth

4 Pit excavated to enable percolation testing:Pit dimensions: 0.2 length x 0.2m width x 1.06mdepth

Test 1 Elapsed Depth(mins) (m)

0 0.6843 0.685122 0.685155 0.685

1.06

B

0.62

A

0.36

falling head test(0.2m x 0.2m)

sump

0 50 100 150

1.0


2

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Elapsed Time (mins)

Dep

th to

Wat

er (

m)

Test 1



TRIAL PIT No.

TP12

Site:



4130/2 02-02-17


c 125m E 396,594 N 221,649

B

0.5

A

0.35

DETAILS OF SUBSOIL

A TOPSOIL: leaves/vegetation/brambles and somegrass over mid brown, silty, organic soil withrootlets; interspersed with light brown, silty CLAY

B CLAY: firm to stiff, light brown/khaki brown, slightlysilty, plastic CLAY with roots/rootlets(CHARMOUTH MUDSTONE FORMATION)

NOTES

1 Oak <10m of pit




0 50 100 150

1.0


2



TRIAL PIT No.

TP13

Site:



4130/2 02-02-17


c 121m E 396,578 N 221,598

DETAILS OF SUBSOIL

A TOPSOIL: grass/vegetation over, mid dark brown,silty, organic TOPSOIL

B CLAY: firm to stiff, light brown/orangish brown,slightly silty CLAY with many roots/rootlets

C CLAY: stiff, mid to dark bluish grey, fissured CLAYwith many roots/rootlets; trial pit terminated on rootsat 0.6m depth(CHARMOUTH MUDSTONE FORMATION)

NOTES

1 Oak <5m northwest of pit




0 50 100 150

1.0


2

B

0.6

0.4

0.05A

C



TRIAL PIT No.

TP14

Site:



4130/2 02-02-17


c 120m E 396,504 N 221,663

B

0.75

0.3

A

DETAILS OF SUBSOIL

A TOPSOIL: grass over, soft mid to light brown, siltyclay TOPSOIL with rootlets

B CLAY: firm to stiff, khaki brown mottled orange,slightly silty, fissured CLAY with occasional finerootlets up to approximately 0.4m depth(CHARMOUTH MUDSTONE FORMATION)

NOTES

1 Oak 8m and Ash 15m east of pit

2 Pit logged from surface; roots at 0.4m depth



0 50 100 150

1.0


2

Wilson AssociatesConsulting Engineering Geologists & Geo-Environmental Engineers

KEY TO BOREHOLE LOG SYMBOLS

Symbol Explanation

D or J Small Disturbed Sample (tub or jar sample)

B Large Disturbed Sample

U Undisturbed Sample

W Water Sample

U70 Undisturbed Sample

Undrained Shear Strength Test (HSV)

90 Hand vane - direct reading in kN/m2

Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

15 SPT ‘N’ Value (BS EN ISO 22476-3:2005)

125/50 Where full test drive not completed, penetration (125mm) and blow count (50) recorded

NR No effective penetration

Water

Water struck

Water standing

Test/Core Range

TCRTotal Core Recovery - as percentage of core run. Where value significantly exceeds 100%,a note is given on remarks on log

SCRSolid Core Recovery - as percentage of core run. Note: assessment of solid core is basedon full diameter

RQDRock Quality Designation - the amount of solid core greater than 100mm expressed aspercentage of core run

Where SPT has been carried out at beginning of core run, disturbed section of coreexcluded from SCR and RQD assessment

Instrumentation

Bentonite Seal

Solid / Perforated Standpipe

Granular Response Zone

90

77

92

95

93

0.50

3.45

TOPSOIL/CLAY: grass over, probable firm, grey brown, slightlyorganic, plastic CLAY0.30 - many fine rootlets

CLAY: firm to stiff, grey mottled light brown, plastic CLAY withoccasional roots/rootlets to c 1.2m depth0.80 - becoming stiff and friable

Core Recovery:0.0 - 1.2m hand-dug starter pit1.2 - 3.0m 100%

Roots encountered at 1.2m depth; Relict to 1.8m depth

No evidence of landslip shear planes

Borehole terminated at 3.45m depth; backfilled with arisings uponcompletion of testing and sampling

Additional 2m deep hole drilled within which a single falling head testwas preformed (0.1m diameter hole)

0.60 D

1.20 N13

1.50 D

2.00 N14

2.50 D

3.00 N38

(0.50)

(2.95)

02-02-17

CMF

Depth Dia. mm

Legend

Depth

Undrained

Shear

Strength

To

Chiselling Water Added

DESCRIPTION(Thick-ness)

Depth

1 of 1

Hours From

BOREHOLE No

dry

HoleDia. mm

Depth

E

w

w

BOREHOLE LOG

Boring Progress and Water Observations

Wat

er

ToFrom

TypeNo

TestResult

Date Casing

STRATA

WaterDpt

SAMPLES & TESTS

Sheet

Date

Project

Contractor

GENERALREMARKS

Logged By

WS1Job No

4130/2

Borehole position scanned usingCable Avoidance Tool (CAT); noservices detected

CMF = Charmouth MudstoneFormation

Co-Ordinates (c.)

E 396,436 N 221,684

Land to the North of St Edwards School, Battledown, Cheltenham - Preliminary

07-02-17

CC Ground Investigations Limited

Client Method/Plant Used

All dimensions in metresScale 1:50

MGWindow Sampling / Terrier 2002 (T05)William Morrison (Cheltenham) Ltd

Ground Level (c.m, AOD)

115.00

Geo

logy

Inst

rum

ent/

Bac

kfill

FALLING HEAD TEST DATA

Client

William Morrison (Cheltenham)

Method/Plant Used

Window Sampling / Terrier 2002 (T05)

Logged By

MG

Project LAND TO THE NORTH OF ST EDWARDS SCHOOL, BATTLEDOWN, CHELTENHAM

Borehole No.

WS1 Job No.

4130/2

Date

07-02-17

Ground Level (c.m AOD)

c 115m

Co-Ordinates (c.)

E 396,436 N 221,684

Hole Dimensions: Depth = 2.0m Width = 0.1m Length = 0.1m

Elapsed Time (mins)

Depth to Water (m)

0 1.0

60 1.0 130 0.93 161 0.81 281 0.75 377 0.62

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Dept

h to

Wat

er (m

)

Elapsed Time (mins)

BOREHOLE PHOTOGRAPHS

Client Method/Plant Used Logged By

William Morrison (Cheltenham) Ltd Window Sampling / Terrier 2002 (T05) MG

Project Land to the North of St Edwards School, Battledown, Cheltenham Borehole No.

WS1 Job No. 4130/2 Date: 07-02-17

WS1 starter pit arisings

WS1 Borehole Core

52

7472

103

92

0.25

3.45

TOPSOIL/CLAY: grass over probable firm, greyish brown, slightlyorganic, plastic TOPSOIL with many fine rootletsCLAY: firm to stiff, greyish brown, plastic CLAY with occasionalroots/rootlets to c 1.6m depth

1.20 - becomng bluish grey

2.20 - becoming stiff

2.40 - 2.50 - locally band of medium to coarse, angular limestonegravel






0.10 D

0.50 D

1.00 D

1.20 N11

1.50 D

2.00 D2.00 N29

3.00 D3.00 N39

(3.20)

02-02-17

CMF

Depth Dia. mm

Legend

Depth

Undrained

Shear

Strength

To



Depth

1 of 1

Hours From

BOREHOLE No

dry

HoleDia. mm

Depth

E

w

w

BOREHOLE LOG


Wat

er

ToFrom

TypeNo

TestResult

Date Casing

STRATA

WaterDpt

SAMPLES & TESTS

Sheet

Date

Project

Contractor

GENERALREMARKS

Logged By

WS2Job No

4130/2



Co-Ordinates (c.)

E 396,459 N 221,750


07-02-17






105.00

Geo

logy

Inst

rum

ent/

Bac

kfill


Client


Method/Plant Used


Logged By

MG


Borehole No.

WS2 Job No.

4130/2

Date

07-02-17


c 105m

Co-Ordinates (c.)

E 396,459 N 221,750

Hole Dimensions: Depth = 2.0m Width = 0.1m Length = 0.1m

Elapsed Time (mins)

Depth to Water (m)

0 1.05

70 1.05 103 1.05 219 1.05 330 1.05

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Dept

h to

Wat

er (m

)

Elapsed Time (mins)





WS2 Job No. 4130/2 Date: 07-02-17


WS2 Borehole Core

72

0.20

3.45

TOPSOIL/CLAY: grass over, probable firm, mid grey brown, slightlyorganic, plastic CLAY with many fine rootletsCLAY: firm, bluish grey, plastic CLAY

1.70 - 2.00 - occasional iron weathering (causes preferentialbreaking)2.00 - becoming friable and thinly laminated





0.50 D

1.20 N14

1.50 D

2.00 N27

2.80 D

3.00 N25

(3.25)

02-02-17

CMF

Depth Dia. mm

Legend

Depth

Undrained

Shear

Strength

To



Depth

1 of 1

Hours From

BOREHOLE No

dry

HoleDia. mm

Depth

E

w

w

BOREHOLE LOG


Wat

er

ToFrom

TypeNo

TestResult

Date Casing

STRATA

WaterDpt

SAMPLES & TESTS

Sheet

Date

Project

Contractor

GENERALREMARKS

Logged By

WS3Job No

4130/2



Co-Ordinates (c.)

E 396,509 N 221,514


07-02-17






107.00

Geo

logy

Inst

rum

ent/

Bac

kfill


Client


Method/Plant Used


Logged By

MG


Borehole No.

WS3 Job No.

4130/2

Date

07-02-17


c 107m

Co-Ordinates (c.)

E 396,509 N 221,514

Hole Dimensions: Depth = 3.45m Width = 0.1 Length = ???

Elapsed Time (mins)

Depth to Water (m)

0 0.85

39 0.85 148 0.85 271 0.86

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Dept

h to

Wat

er (m

)

Elapsed Time (mins)





WS3 Job No. 4130/2 Date: 07-02-17


WS3 Borehole Core

0.30

3.45

TOPSOIL/CLAY: grass over, probable soft, firm grey brown, slightlyorganic, plastic CLAYCLAY: firm to stiff, grey brown, plastic CLAY with occasionalroots/rootlets to c 1.1m depth

1.10 - thinly laminated and friable

1.80 - 2.10 - black iron stone weathering

2.90 - 3.45 - black iron stone weathering





0.10 D

1.20 D1.20 N14

2.00 N30

2.50 D

3.00 N29

(3.15)

02-02-17

CMF

Depth Dia. mm

Legend

Depth

Undrained

Shear

Strength

To



Depth

1 of 1

Hours From

BOREHOLE No

dry

HoleDia. mm

Depth

E

w

w

BOREHOLE LOG


Wat

er

ToFrom

TypeNo

TestResult

Date Casing

STRATA

WaterDpt

SAMPLES & TESTS

Sheet

Date

Project

Contractor

GENERALREMARKS

Logged By

WS4Job No

4130/2



Co-Ordinates (c.)

E 396,535 N 221,607


07-02-17






117.00

Geo

logy

Inst

rum

ent/

Bac

kfill





WS4 Job No. 4130/2 Date: 07-02-17


WS4 Borehole Core

0.20

2.39

TOPSOIL/CLAY: grass over soft, grey brown, slightly organic, plasticCLAY with many fine rootletsCLAY: firm to stiff, grey, plastic CLAY with occasional rootlets to 1.1mdepth

1.70 - mudstone cobble1.80 - becoming friable and stiff2.00 - SPT refusal


Roots encountered to 1.1m depth



0.50 D

1.20 D1.20 N10

2.00 D2.00 N50/

235 mm

(2.19)

02-02-17

Depth Dia. mm

Legend

Depth

Undrained

Shear

Strength

To



Depth

1 of 1

Hours From

BOREHOLE No

dry

HoleDia. mm

Depth

E

w

w

BOREHOLE LOG


Wat

er

ToFrom

TypeNo

TestResult

Date Casing

STRATA

WaterDpt

SAMPLES & TESTS

Sheet

Date

Project

Contractor

GENERALREMARKS

Logged By

WS5Job No

4130/2



Co-Ordinates (c.)

E 396,640 N 221,629


07-02-17






124.00

Geo

logy

Inst

rum

ent/

Bac

kfill





WS5 Job No. 4130/2 Date: 07-02-17


WS5 Borehole Core

76

82

93

0.30

3.45

TOPSOIL/CLAY: grass over firm, grey brown, slightly organic, plasticCLAY with many fine rootletsCLAY: firm to stiff, bluish grey, plastic CLAY with occasionalroots/rootlets to c 1.5m depth

1.15 - becoming friable and thinly laminated

3.00 - becoming stiff


Roots encountered to 1.5m depth; Relict to 1.9m depth



0.10 D

0.50 D

1.20 D1.20 N81.50 D

2.00 N18

2.50 D

3.00 N34

(3.15)

02-02-17

CMF

Depth Dia. mm

Legend

Depth

Undrained

Shear

Strength

To



Depth

1 of 1

Hours From

BOREHOLE No

dry

HoleDia. mm

Depth

E

w

w

BOREHOLE LOG


Wat

er

ToFrom

TypeNo

TestResult

Date Casing

STRATA

WaterDpt

SAMPLES & TESTS

Sheet

Date

Project

Contractor

GENERALREMARKS

Logged By

WS6Job No

4130/2



Co-Ordinates (c.)

E 396,624 N 221,526


07-02-17






112.00

Geo

logy

Inst

rum

ent/

Bac

kfill





WS6 Job No. 4130/2 Date: 07-02-17


WS6 Borehole Core

Job No. 4130/2

APPENDIX 3

CONTAMINATION

STATUTORY FRAMEWORK / METHODOLOGY AND

CERTIFIED CONTAMINATION TEST RESULTS

Job No. 4130/2

Page No. 1 A3 CONTAMINATION RISK ASSESSMENT Statutory Framework A3.1 Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (inserted by Section 57 of the

Environment Act 1995) provides a regime for the control of specific threats to health or the environment from existing land contamination. In accordance with the Act and the statutory guidance document on the Contaminated Land (England) Regulations 2000, the definition of contaminated land is intended to embody the concept of risk assessment. Within the meaning of the Act, land is only ’contaminated land’ where it appears to the regulatory authority, by reason of substances within or under the land, that:

• Significant harm is being caused or there is significant possibility of such harm

being caused; or

• Pollution of controlled waters is being, or is likely to be, caused. A3.2 In 2012 revised Statutory Guidance for Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act

(1990) came into force for England and Wales. This introduced a new four category approach for classifying land affected by contamination to assist decisions by regulators in cases of Significant Possibility of Significant Harm (SPOSH) to specified receptors, including humans, and significant pollution of controlled waters.

Category 1 describes land which is clearly problematic e.g. because similar sites are known to have caused a significant problem in the past. The legal definition is where “there is an unacceptably high probability, supported by robust science-based evidence, that significant harm would occur if no action is taken to stop it”. Categories 2 and 3 cover land where detailed consideration is needed before deciding whether it may be contaminated land. Category 2 is defined as land where “there is a strong case for considering that the risks from the land are of sufficient concern that the land poses a significant possibility of significant harm”. Category 3 is defined as land where there is not the strong case described in the test for Category 2, and may include “land where the risks are not low, but nonetheless the authority considers that regulatory intervention under Part 2A is not warranted”. The decision basis is initially related to human health risks, and if this is not conclusive due to uncertainty over risks, wider socio-economic factors (e.g. cost, local perception etc).

Job No. 4130/2

Page No. 2

Category 4 describes land that is clearly not contaminated land, where there is no risk or the level or risk posed is low. This same 4 category system has also been introduced to assist in identifying whether there is a significant possibility of significant pollution of controlled waters. Part 2A states that normal levels of contaminants in soil should not be considered to cause land to qualify as contaminated land, unless there is a particular reason to consider otherwise. Following publication of the revised Statutory Guidance, DEFRA commissioned a research project to develop new Category 4 Screening Levels (C4SLs) to provide a simplified test for regulators to aid decision-making on when land was suitable for use and definitely not contaminated land under the statutory regime. The output from this research project was published by CL:AIRE in December 2013, with Policy Companion Documents published in England by DEFRA in March 2014 and the Welsh Government in May 2014. The culmination of this work was the development of a framework and methodology for deriving C4SLs and the publication of final C4SLs for use as new screening values for six common contaminants.

Further research by LQM on behalf of CIEH lead to the publication in 2015 of the Suitable for Use Levels known as S4ULs, and these are now widely adopted as a robust and authoritative source of guidance (see A3.14 below).

Once land has been determined as contaminated land, the enforcing authority must consider how it should be remediated and, where appropriate, it must issue a remediation notice to require such remediation. The enforcing authority for the purposes of remediation may be the local authority which determined the land, or the Environment Agency which takes on responsibility once land has been determined if the land is deemed to be a “special site”. The rules on what land is to be regarded as special sites, and various rules on the issuing of remediation notices, are set out in the Contaminated Land (England) Regulations 2006

A3.3 The UK guidance on the assessment of land contamination has developed as a

direct result of the introduction of the above two Acts. The technical guidance supporting the new legislation has been summarised in a number of key documents collectively known as the Contaminated Land Reports (CLRs), a proposed series of twelve documents. Seven were originally published in March 1994, four more were published in April 2002, while the last remaining guidance document (CLR 11 was

Job No. 4130/2

Page No. 3

published in 2004. In 2008 CLR reports 7 to 10 were withdrawn by the Department of Environment Food & Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency and updated versions of CLR 9 and 10 were produced in the form of Science Reports SR2 and SR3.

A3.4 The guidance defines ‘risk’ as the combination of:

• The probability, or frequency, of occurrence of a defined hazard (e.g. exposure of a property to a substance with the potential to cause harm); and

• The magnitude (including the seriousness) of the consequences. A3.5 For a risk of pollution or environmental harm to occur as a result of ground

contamination, all of the following elements must be present:

• A source, i.e. a substance that is capable of causing pollution or harm;

• A pathway, i.e. a route by which the contaminant can reach the receptor; and

• A receptor (or target), i.e. something which could be adversely affected by the contaminant.

A3.6 If any one of these elements is missing there can be no significant risk. If all are

present then the magnitude of the risk is a function of the magnitude and mobility of the source, the sensitivity of the receptor and the nature of the migration pathway.

A3.7 The presence of contamination is also a material issue in the determination of

planning applications, and where a change of use is proposed, especially on brownfield (former industrial) land, investigation, assessment and remediation of contamination is often a requirement of the Planning Authority. The presence of contamination may consequently require remedial action prior to redevelopment, in circumstances which would otherwise be unlikely to result in the determination of the land as contaminated land as defined in the above legislation.

Contamination Assessment Methodology A3.8 The guidance proposes a four-stage assessment process for identifying potential

pollutant linkages on a site. These stages are set out in the table below:

Job No. 4130/2

Page No. 4

No. Process Description

1 Hazard Identification Establishing contaminant sources, pathways and receptors (the preliminary conceptual site model).

2 Hazard Assessment Analysing the potential for unacceptable risks (what linkages could be present, what could be the effects).

3 Risk Estimation Trying to establish the magnitude and probability of the possible consequences (what degree of harm might result and to what receptors, and how likely is it).

4 Risk Evaluation Deciding whether the risk is unacceptable.

A3.9 Stages 1 and 2 develop a ‘preliminary conceptual model’ based upon information

collated from desk studies and usually a site walkover inspection. The formation of a conceptual site model is an iterative process, and it should be updated and refined throughout each stage of the project to reflect any additional information obtained.

A3.10 The information gleaned from the desk studies and associated enquiries is presented

in a desk study report with recommendations, if necessary, for further work based upon the preliminary conceptual site model. CLR 8, together with specific DoE ‘Industry Profiles’ provides guidance on the nature of contaminants relating to specific industrial processes. Whilst it is acknowledged that CLR 8 has been withdrawn no replacement guidance has yet been published that lists the contaminants likely to be present on contaminated sites, thus CLR 8 guidance is still considered relevant.

A3.11 If the preliminary conceptual model identifies potential pollutant linkages, a Phase 2

site investigation is normally recommended, unless appropriate mitigation measures can be incorporated into the proposed development sufficient to negate the identified risks, subject to local planning authority approval. The number of exploratory holes and samples collected for analysis should be consistent with the size of the site and the level of risk envisaged. This will enable a contamination risk assessment to be conducted, at which point the preliminary conceptual model can be updated and relevant pollutant linkages identified.

Preliminary Risk Assessment

A3.12 By considering the various potential sources, pathways and receptors, a preliminary

assessment of potential risk is made based upon the likelihood of the occurrence and the severity of the potential consequence, the latter being a function of the

Job No. 4130/2

Page No. 5

sensitivity of the receptor. At Phase 1 desk study stage the qualitative risk assessment is based on the categories tabulated below.

Category Definition

Severe Acute risks to human health, catastrophic damage to buildings/property, major pollution to controlled waters

Moderate Chronic risk to human health, pollution of sensitive controlled waters, significant effects on sensitive ecosystems or species, significant damage to buildings or structures

Mild Pollution of non-sensitive waters, minor damage to buildings or structures

Minor Requirement for protective equipment during site works to mitigate health effects, damage to non-sensitive ecosystems or species

A3.13 The likelihood of an event (probability) takes into account both the presence of the hazard and receptor and viability of the pathway, and is based on the categories tabulated below.

Category Definition

Highly likely Pollutant linkage may be present, and risk is almost certain to occur in long term, or there is evidence of harm to the receptor

Likely Pollutant linkage may be present, and it is probable that the risk will occur over the long term

Possible Pollution linkage may be present, and there is a possibility of the risk occurring, although there is no certainty that it will do so

Unlikely Pollutant linkage may be present, but the circumstances under which harm would occur are improbable

A3.14 On this basis potential hazards are assigned a risk rating as shown below.

Probability (Likelihood)

Consequence

Severe Moderate Mild Minor

Highly likely very high high moderate low

Likely high moderate low/moderate low

Possible moderate low/moderate low very low

Unlikely low/moderate

low very low very low

Job No. 4130/2

Page No. 6 A3.15 At Phase 2 stage, quantitative assessment of human health risk posed by ground

contamination is achieved by comparison of soil concentrations with Tier 1 Category Four Screening Levels (C4SL) published by DEFRA (2014), and/or Suitable for Use Levels (S4UL) as published by LQM/CIEH (2015). The official Soil Guideline Values utilise a soil organic matter content of 6% which is considered to be higher than typical UK soils, however three sets of S4UL’s have been developed for organic matter contents of 1%, 2.5% and 6%, thus the most appropriate set is selected based upon proven site conditions.

A3.16 Contaminant concentrations below the threshold screening values are considered

not to warrant further risk assessment. Concentrations of contaminants above these screening values require further consideration of potential pollutant linkages and may indicate potentially unacceptable risks to site users. Such exceedances may trigger a Tier 2 detailed quantitative risk assessment (DQRA) where site-specific parameters are used to derive site specific assessment criteria (SSAC), usually by using the CLEA Model (V1.06 at time of writing). It should be noted that exceedance of a screening value does not necessarily indicate that the site requires remediation.

A3.17 In order to assess any risk to controlled waters posed by contaminants within the

underlying soils and groundwater, laboratory results have been screened against Level 1 Environmental Quality Standard (EQS) values derived from the Water Framework Directive (Standards & Classification) Directions (England & Wales) 2015 and the current UK Drinking Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations (DWS), dependent upon the most vulnerable receptor. The EQS is usually an upper concentration set for the receiving watercourse and not the discharge itself. The DWS is established for compliance at the point of use or abstraction and not the source area.

Job No. 4130/2

Wilson Associates (Consulting) Limited Registered Office: 36 Brunswick Road, Gloucester GL1 1JJ Company No. 6133365

SUMMARY OF CONTAMINATION TESTING RESULTS

Arse

nic

Cadm

ium

Chro

mium

Lead

Mercu

ry

Selen

ium

Nick

el

Copp

er

Zinc

C8 -

C10

C10 -

C12

C12 -

C16

C16 -

C21

C21 -

35

Arse

nic

Cadm

ium

Chro

mium

Lead

Mercu

ry

Selen

ium

Nick

el

Copp

er

Zinc

TP1 0.4 clay (Charmouth Mudstone Formation) 6.6 15 <1 50 22 <1 <3 33 19 92 25

TP2 0.1 topsoil 5.9 16 <1 44 42 <1 <3 29 18 93 35


TP4 0.5 clay (Charmouth Mudstone Formation) 6.5 15 <1 59 16 <1 <3 32 21 87 0.6 24

TP5 0.1 topsoil 5.8 17 <1 44 57 <1 <3 30 21 92 38 (13) <1 (13) <1 (13) <1 (13) <1 (13) 9 0.6 4.1 6 1.0 0.54 <0.5 2 3.5 17



TP8 0.0 made ground (bonfire ash) 11 <1 35 1900 <1 <3 20 44 300 64 7.6 0.18 2 1.9 <0.05 0.7 1 1.8 7

TP8 0.2 topsoil 6.2 22 <1 46 65 <1 <3 29 22 110 37


TP10 0.1 topsoil (disturbed) 5.9 24 <1 50 270 <1 <3 33 29 140 ND 32 (13) 3 (13) <1 (13) 3 (13) 12 (13) 89


TP11 0.1 topsoil 5.5 12 <1 56 30 <1 <3 35 28 92 33

TP12 0.2 topsoil (organic) 7.0 21 <1 47 56 <1 <3 31 21 99 5.1 30

TP13 0.3 silty clay 6.1 20 <1 47 39 <1 <3 28 20 88 26


WS1 0.1 topsoil 5.9 17 <1 56 22 <1 <3 34 25 94 27

WS2 0.5 clay (Charmouth Mudstone Formation) 6.2 14 <1 40 38 <1 <3 26 16 81 26

WS3 0.1 topsoil 6.8 16 <1 46 23 <1 <3 29 16 75 25


WS5 0.10 topsoil 6.0 15 <1 51 22 <1 <3 28 18 83 29


37 11 910 200 ♠ 40 250 180 2,400 3,700 2,400 3,700 65 180 330 540 1,500

40 85 910 310 ♠ 56 430 180 7,100 40,000 7,100 40,000 65 330 2,300 1,900 1,900

43 1.9 18,000 80 ♠ 19 88 230 520 620 520 620 21 31 57 110 820

640 190 8,600 2330 ♠ 1,100 12,000 980 68,000 730,000 68,000 730,000 4,800 23,000 37,000 28,000 28,000

79 120 1,500 630 ♠ 120 1,100 230 12,000 81,000 12,000 81,000 5,000 5,000 5,100 3,800 3,800

170 532 33,000 1300 ♠ 240 1,800 3,400 44,000 170,000 44,000 170,000 8,500 9,700 10,000 7,900 7,800

7.5 3.75 37.5 7.5 0.75 75 15 1500

50 0.08 3.4 1.2 0.07 <1 1 12.3

50 0.08-0.25 4.7 7.2 0.07 20 1-28 8-125

10 5 50 25 1 10 50 2000 5000

CIEH/LQM s=CIEH/LQM v =

S4UL

DEFRA ♠ =(13) =

(100) =

TOXIC METALS (µg/l) PHYTOTOXIC METALS (µg/l)

LEACHATE

WFD "Water Framework Directive Standards & Classification (England & Wales)" 2015 (Groundwater)

Samp

le De

pth

Samp

le of

pH

TOXIC METALS (mg/kg) PHYTOTOXIC METALS (mg/kg)

SOILS

Asbe

stos I

D

Soil O

rgan

ic Ma

tter (

%)

Moist

ure C

onten

t @ 10

5 C

(%

)

CIEH/LQM S4UL

C4SL (2014)

UK Drinking Water Standards "The Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2000"

EA EQS "River Basin Districts Typology, Standards & Groundwater Threshold Values (Water Framework Directive) (England & Wales) Directions 2010"

WFD "Water Framework Directive Standards & Classification (England & Wales)" 2015 (Fresh Surface Water)

TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS (BANDED) (mg/kg)

TIER 1: GENERIC ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

S4UL (Residential with plant uptake)

S4UL (Residential without plant uptake)

Samp

le Re

f

S4UL (Allotments)

S4UL (Commercial)

S4UL (Public Open Space - Residential)

S4UL (Public Open Space - Park)

LOD determined by sample aliquot used for analysis

GAC/S4UL presented exceeds the solubility saturation limit, which is presented in bracketsGAC/S4UL presented exceeds the vapour saturation limit, which is presented in brackets

d = S4UL based on a threshold protective of direct skin contact with phenol (guideline in brackets based on health effects following long term expsoure provided for illustration only)

Results have been blank corrected

TIER 2: SITE SPECIFICUpper Confidence Limit [on true mean concentration, u] (CIEH Statistical Calculator)Site-Specific Assessment Criteria (SSAC’s) residential with homegrown produce

LQM/CIEH published Suitable for use levels (2015)Based on Soil Organic Matter of 2.5%

Job No. 4130/2

Wilson Associates (Consulting) Limited Registered Office: 36 Brunswick Road, Gloucester GL1 1JJ Company No. 6133365

SUMMARY OF POLYAROMATIC HYDROCARBON (PAH) TESTING RESULTS

TOTA

L PA

H

Naph

thalen

e

Acen

aphth

ylene

Acen

aphth

ene

Fluor

ene

Phen

anthr

ene

Anthr

acen

e

Fluor

anthe

ne

Pyre

ne

Benz

o(a)

Anthr

acen

e

Chrys

ene

Benz

o(b)

Fluor

anthe

ne

Benz

o(k)F

luora

nthen

e

Benz

o(a)

Pyre

ne

Inden

o(1,2

,3-cd

)Pyre

ne

Dibe

nzo(

ah)A

nthra

cene

Benz

o(gh

i)Per

ylene

TOTA

L PA

H

Naph

thalen

e

Acen

aphth

ylene

Acen

aphth

ene

Fluor

ene

Phen

anthr

ene

Anthr

acen

e

Fluor

anthe

ne

Pyre

ne

Benz

o(a)

Anthr

acen

e

Chrys

ene

Benz

o(b)

Fluor

anthe

ne

Benz

o(k)F

luora

nthen

e

Benz

o(a)

Pyre

ne

Dibe

nzo(

ah)A

nthra

cene

Inden

o(1,2

,3)pe

rylen

e

Benz

o(gh

i)Per

ylene

TP6 1.0 clay (Charmouth Mudstone Formation) <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

TP8 0.0 made ground (bonfire ash) (100) <0.2 (100) <0.2 (100) <0.2 (100) <0.2 (100) <0.2 (100) <0.2 (100) <0.2 (100) <0.2 (100) <0.2 (100) <0.2 (100) <0.2 (100) <0.2 (100) <0.2 (100) <0.2 (100) <0.2 (100) <0.2 (100) <0.2 0.24 (13) 0.08(13,100)

<0.02(13) 0.02 (13) 0.02 (13) 0.08

(13,100)

<0.02(13) 0.02 (13) 0.02

(13,100)

<0.02

(13,100)

<0.02

(13,100)

<0.02

(13,100)

<0.02

(13,100)

<0.02

(13,100)

<0.02

(13,100)

<0.02

(13,100)

<0.02TP8 0.2 topsoil <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

5.6 420 510 400 220 5,400 560 1,200 11 22 3.3 93 3 (5♠) 36 0.28 340

5.6 4,600 (212)s

4,700 (141)s

3,800 (76.5)s

1,500 35,000 1600 3,800 14 31 4 110 3.2 (5.3♠) 46 0.32 360

0 69 85 67 38 950 130 270 6.5 9.4 2.1 75 3.5 (5.7♠) 21 0.27 470

460 (183)s

97,000 97,000 68,000 22,000 540,000 23,000 54,000 170.00 350 44 1,200 36 (76♠) 510 3.60 4,000

4,900 15,000 15,000 9,900 3,100 74,000 3,100 7,400 29 57 7.2 190 5.7 (10♠) 82 0.57 6401,900 (183)s

30,000 30,000 20,000 6,200 150,000 6,300 15,000 56 110 15 410 13 (21♠) 170 1.3 1,500

0.075 0.075

1.03 - 4.24

0.052 -0.193

0.0033 - 0.0122

0.016 - 0.058

0.000089 -

2.4 0.03 0.03 0.05 Sum of = 0.002

0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.1 0.1 0.1

SUMMARY OF ORGANOCHLORINE & ORGANOPHOSPHOROUS INSECTICIDES TESTING RESULTS

Hexa

chlor

ocyc

lohex

ane

Hexa

chlor

oben

zene

Hepta

chlor

Aldr

in

Hepta

chlor

epox

ide

Chlor

dane

Endo

sulph

an

DDE

Dield

rin

Endr

in

DDD

DDT

Dich

lorvo

s

Mevin

phos

Dime

thoate

Diaz

inon

Pirim

iphos

meth

yl

Malat

hion

Fenit

rothi

on

Para

thion

Azinp

hos m

ethyl

TP1 0.4 clay (Charmouth Mudstone Formation) <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

0.2 6.6 17 2.0 0.066

3.8 7.4 320 7.3 6.5

0.032 6.1 2.7 0.41 0.01

65 170 7,800 (0.0002)v

170 140

8.1 18 1,200 18 16

15 31 2,400 30 26

Upper Confidence Limit [on true mean concentration, u] (CIEH Statistical Calculator)Site-Specific Assessment Criteria (SSAC’s) residential with homegrown produce

Organochlorine Insecticides SOIL (mg/kg) Organophosphorous Insecticides SOIL (mg/kg)

Samp

le Re

f

Samp

le De

pth (m

)

Samp

le of





UK Drinking Water Standards "The Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2000"

WFD "Water Framework Directive Standards & Classification (England & Wales)" 2015 (Groundwater)

TIER 2: SITE SPECIFIC

Samp

le Re

f

Samp

le De

pth (m

)

Samp

le of

SOIL (mg/kg) LEACHATE (µg/l)





S4UL (Allotments)

S4UL (Commercial)



S4UL (Commercial)

S4UL (Allotments)

WFD "Water Framework Directive Standards & Classification (England & Wales)" 2015 (Fresh Surface Water)

EA EQS "River Basin Districts Typology, Standards & Groundwater Threshold Values (Water Framework Directive) (England & Wales) Directions 2010"

Site-Specific Assessment Criteria (SSAC’s) residential with homegrown produce

Upper Confidence Limit [on true mean concentration, u] (CIEH Statistical Calculator)

TIER 2: SITE SPECIFIC

Scientific Analysis Laboratories Ltd

Certificate of Analysis

Hadfield HouseHadfield Street

CornbrookManchester

M16 9FETel : 0161 874 2400Fax : 0161 874 2468

Report Number: 631948-1

Date of Report: 16-Feb-2017

Customer: Wilson Associates (Consulting) Limited36 Brunswick RoadGloucesterGL1 1JJ

Customer Contact: Mr David J Wilson

Customer Job Reference: 4130/2Customer Purchase Order: 4130/2/swCustomer Site Reference: Battledown

Date Job Received at SAL: 08-Feb-2017Date Analysis Started: 08-Feb-2017

Date Analysis Completed: 16-Feb-2017

The results reported relate to samples received in the laboratory and may not be representative of a wholebatch.Opinions and interpretations expressed herein are outside the scope of UKAS accreditationThis report should not be reproduced except in full without the written approval of the laboratoryTests covered by this certificate were conducted in accordance with SAL SOPsAll results have been reviewed in accordance with Section 25 of the SAL Quality Manual

This document has been printed from a digitally signed master copy

Scientific Analysis Laboratories is a

limited company registered in England and

Wales (No 2514788) whose address is at

Hadfield House, Hadfield Street, Manchester M16 9FE

1549

Report checkedand authorised by :Muhammad WaqasProject Manager

Issued by :Muhammad WaqasProject Manager

Page 1 of 11

631948-1

SAL Reference: 631948

Project Site: Battledown

Customer Reference: 4130/2

Soil Analysed as Soil

MCERTS Preparation

SAL Reference 631948 001 631948 002 631948 003 631948 004 631948 005

Customer Sample Reference TP1 TP2 TP3 TP4 TP5

Bottom Depth 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.5 0.1

Date Sampled 02-FEB-2017 02-FEB-2017 02-FEB-2017 02-FEB-2017 02-FEB-2017

Type Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay

Determinand Method TestSample LOD Units

Moisture @105C T162 AR 0.1 % 25 35 23 24 38

Retained on 10mm sieve T2 M40 0.1 % <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1





MCERTS Preparation

SAL Reference 631948 006 631948 007 631948 008 631948 009 631948 010


Bottom Depth 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 1.0




Moisture @105C T162 AR 0.1 % 24 26 43 37 28






MCERTS Preparation

SAL Reference 631948 011 631948 012 631948 013 631948 014 631948 015


Bottom Depth 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.3




Moisture @105C T162 AR 0.1 % 32 24 33 30 26






MCERTS Preparation

SAL Reference 631948 016 631948 017 631948 018 631948 019 631948 020

Customer Sample Reference TP14 WS1 WS2 WS3 WS4

Bottom Depth 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.5




Moisture @105C T162 AR 0.1 % 26 27 26 25 34



Produced by Scientific Analysis Laboratories Ltd, Hadfield House, Hadfield Street, Cornbrook, Manchester, M16 9FE Page 2 of 11

631948-1





MCERTS Preparation

SAL Reference 631948 021 631948 022

Customer Sample Reference WS5 WS6

Bottom Depth 0.1 0.5

Date Sampled 02-FEB-2017 02-FEB-2017

Type Clay Clay


Moisture @105C T162 AR 0.1 % 29 26

Retained on 10mm sieve T2 M40 0.1 % <0.1 <0.1





Heavy Metals(9)

SAL Reference 631948 001 631948 002 631948 003 631948 004 631948 005


Bottom Depth 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.5 0.1




Arsenic T6 M40 2 mg/kg 15 16 19 15 17

Cadmium T6 M40 1 mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Chromium T6 M40 1 mg/kg 50 44 57 59 44

Copper T6 M40 1 mg/kg 19 18 27 21 21

Lead T6 M40 1 mg/kg 22 42 18 16 57

Mercury T6 M40 1 mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Nickel T6 M40 1 mg/kg 33 29 36 32 30

Selenium T6 M40 3 mg/kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3

Zinc T6 M40 1 mg/kg 92 93 98 87 92





Heavy Metals(9)

SAL Reference 631948 006 631948 007 631948 008 631948 009 631948 010


Bottom Depth 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 1.0




Arsenic T6 M40 2 mg/kg 17 16 (IS) 22 22

Cadmium T6 M40 1 mg/kg <1 <1 (IS) <1 <1

Chromium T6 M40 1 mg/kg 52 56 (IS) 46 62

Copper T6 M40 1 mg/kg 27 21 (IS) 22 25

Lead T6 M40 1 mg/kg 25 19 (IS) 65 18

Mercury T6 M40 1 mg/kg <1 <1 (IS) <1 <1

Nickel T6 M40 1 mg/kg 38 31 (IS) 29 35

Selenium T6 M40 3 mg/kg <3 <3 (IS) <3 <3

Zinc T6 M40 1 mg/kg 96 80 (IS) 110 87



631948-1





Heavy Metals(9)

SAL Reference 631948 011 631948 012 631948 013 631948 014 631948 015


Bottom Depth 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.3




Arsenic T6 M40 2 mg/kg 24 21 12 21 20

Cadmium T6 M40 1 mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Chromium T6 M40 1 mg/kg 50 45 56 47 47

Copper T6 M40 1 mg/kg 29 24 28 21 20

Lead T6 M40 1 mg/kg 270 230 30 56 39

Mercury T6 M40 1 mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Nickel T6 M40 1 mg/kg 33 31 35 31 28

Selenium T6 M40 3 mg/kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3

Zinc T6 M40 1 mg/kg 140 120 92 99 88





Heavy Metals(9)

SAL Reference 631948 016 631948 017 631948 018 631948 019 631948 020


Bottom Depth 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.5




Arsenic T6 M40 2 mg/kg 19 17 14 16 19

Cadmium T6 M40 1 mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Chromium T6 M40 1 mg/kg 55 56 40 46 42

Copper T6 M40 1 mg/kg 25 25 16 16 17

Lead T6 M40 1 mg/kg 23 22 38 23 58

Mercury T6 M40 1 mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Nickel T6 M40 1 mg/kg 31 34 26 29 26

Selenium T6 M40 3 mg/kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3

Zinc T6 M40 1 mg/kg 89 94 81 75 87





Heavy Metals(9)

SAL Reference 631948 021 631948 022




Type Clay Clay


Arsenic T6 M40 2 mg/kg 15 16

Cadmium T6 M40 1 mg/kg <1 <1

Chromium T6 M40 1 mg/kg 51 46

Copper T6 M40 1 mg/kg 18 19

Lead T6 M40 1 mg/kg 22 38

Mercury T6 M40 1 mg/kg <1 <1

Nickel T6 M40 1 mg/kg 28 33

Selenium T6 M40 3 mg/kg <3 <3

Zinc T6 M40 1 mg/kg 83 89



631948-1





Wilson Sulphate Suite

SAL Reference 631948 023 631948 024 631948 025 631948 026 631948 027

Customer Sample Reference WS2 WS2 WS2 WS6 WS6

Bottom Depth 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.5 1.5




pH T7 A40 5.6 6.9 7.5 6.8 6.4

SO4(2:1) as SO3 T82 A40 50 mg/l <50 <50 <50 <50 <50

SO4(Total) T102 AR 0.01 % 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03

(Total Potential) SO4(Total) Expressed as SO4 T182 AR 0.15 % <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15

(Water Soluble) SO4(2:1) expressed as SO4 T242 AR 10 mg/l 65 18 <10 10 49

(Oxidisable) Sulphide Expressed as SO4 T194 AR 0.01 % <0.11 <0.14 <0.13 <0.13 <0.12

Sulphur (total) T21 AR 0.05 % <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05





Wilson Sulphate Suite

SAL Reference 631948 028

Customer Sample Reference WS6

Bottom Depth 2.5

Date Sampled 02-FEB-2017

Type Clay


pH T7 A40 7.1

SO4(2:1) as SO3 T82 A40 50 mg/l <50

SO4(Total) T102 AR 0.01 % <0.01

(Total Potential) SO4(Total) Expressed as SO4 T182 AR 0.15 % <0.15

(Water Soluble) SO4(2:1) expressed as SO4 T242 AR 10 mg/l 10

(Oxidisable) Sulphide Expressed as SO4 T194 AR 0.01 % <0.01

Sulphur (total) T21 AR 0.05 % <0.05





Miscellaneous

SAL Reference 631948 001 631948 002 631948 003 631948 004 631948 005


Bottom Depth 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.5 0.1




pH T7 AR 6.6 5.9 6.4 6.5 5.8

Leach Prep T2 AR - - - -

Soil Organic Matter T287 AR 0.1 % - - - 0.6 -



631948-1





Miscellaneous

SAL Reference 631948 006 631948 007 631948 008 631948 009 631948 010


Bottom Depth 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 1.0




pH T7 AR 6.8 6.2 (IS) 6.2 6.2

Leach Prep T2 AR - - - -





Miscellaneous

SAL Reference 631948 011 631948 012 631948 013 631948 014 631948 015


Bottom Depth 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.3




pH T7 AR 5.9 5.7 5.5 7.0 6.1

Asbestos ID T27 AR N.D. - - - -

Soil Organic Matter T287 AR 0.1 % - - - 5.1 -





Miscellaneous

SAL Reference 631948 016 631948 017 631948 018 631948 019 631948 020


Bottom Depth 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.5




pH T7 AR 6.2 5.9 6.2 6.8 6.1





Miscellaneous

SAL Reference 631948 021 631948 022




Type Clay Clay


pH T7 AR 6.0 6.2



631948-1





PAH US EPA 16 (B and K split)

SAL Reference 631948 006 631948 008 631948 009

Customer Sample Reference TP6 TP8 TP8

Bottom Depth 1.0 0.0 0.2

Date Sampled 02-FEB-2017 02-FEB-2017 02-FEB-2017

Type Clay Clay Clay


Naphthalene T207 M105 0.1 mg/kg <0.1 (100) <0.2 <0.1

Acenaphthylene T207 M105 0.1 mg/kg <0.1 (100) <0.2 <0.1

Acenaphthene T207 M105 0.1 mg/kg <0.1 (100) <0.2 <0.1

Fluorene T207 M105 0.1 mg/kg <0.1 (100) <0.2 <0.1

Phenanthrene T207 M105 0.1 mg/kg <0.1 (100) <0.2 <0.1

Anthracene T207 M105 0.1 mg/kg <0.1 (100) <0.2 <0.1

Fluoranthene T207 M105 0.1 mg/kg <0.1 (100) <0.2 <0.1

Pyrene T207 M105 0.1 mg/kg <0.1 (100) <0.2 <0.1

Benzo(a)Anthracene T207 M105 0.1 mg/kg <0.1 (100) <0.2 <0.1

Chrysene T207 M105 0.1 mg/kg <0.1 (100) <0.2 <0.1

Benzo(b)fluoranthene T207 M105 0.1 mg/kg <0.1 (100) <0.2 <0.1

Benzo(k)fluoranthene T207 M105 0.1 mg/kg <0.1 (100) <0.2 <0.1

Benzo(a)Pyrene T207 M105 0.1 mg/kg <0.1 (100) <0.2 <0.1

Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene T207 M105 0.1 mg/kg <0.1 (100) <0.2 <0.1

Dibenzo(ah)Anthracene T207 M105 0.1 mg/kg <0.1 (100) <0.2 <0.1

Benzo(ghi)Perylene T207 M105 0.1 mg/kg <0.1 (100) <0.2 <0.1

PAH(total) T207 M105 0.1 mg/kg <0.1 (100) <0.2 <0.1





Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons Banded (C8-C10, C10-C12, C12-C16, C16-C21, C21-C35)

SAL Reference 631948 005 631948 011

Customer Sample Reference TP5 TP10



Type Clay Clay


TPH (C8-C10) T8 M105 1 mg/kg (13) <1 (13) 3

TPH (C10-C12) T8 M105 1 mg/kg (13) <1 (13) <1

TPH (C12-C16) T8 M105 1 mg/kg (13) <1 (13) 3

TPH (C16-C21) T8 M105 1 mg/kg (13) <1 (13) 12

TPH (C21-C35) T8 M105 1 mg/kg (13) 9 (13) 89



631948-1





Organochlorine insecticides


Customer Sample Reference TP1

Bottom Depth 0.4


Type Clay


Hexachlorocyclohexane T16 AR 0.01 mg/kg <0.01

Hexachlorobenzene T1 AR 0.01 mg/kg <0.01

Heptachlor T16 AR 0.01 mg/kg <0.01

Aldrin T16 AR 0.01 mg/kg <0.01

Heptachlor epoxide T16 AR 0.01 mg/kg <0.01

Chlordane T16 AR 0.01 mg/kg <0.01

Endosulphan T16 AR 0.01 mg/kg <0.01

DDE T16 AR 0.01 mg/kg <0.01

Dieldrin T16 AR 0.01 mg/kg <0.01

Endrin T16 AR 0.01 mg/kg <0.01

DDD T16 AR 0.01 mg/kg <0.01

DDT T16 AR 0.01 mg/kg <0.01





Organophosphorous insecticides



Bottom Depth 0.4


Type Clay


Dichlorvos T16 AR 0.01 mg/kg <0.01

Mevinphos T16 AR 0.01 mg/kg <0.01

Dimethoate T16 AR 0.01 mg/kg <0.01

Diazinon T16 AR 0.01 mg/kg <0.01

Pirimiphos methyl T16 AR 0.01 mg/kg <0.01

Malathion T16 AR 0.01 mg/kg <0.01

Fenitrothion T16 AR 0.01 mg/kg <0.01

Parathion T16 AR 0.01 mg/kg <0.01

Azinphos methyl T16 AR 0.01 mg/kg <0.01



631948-1

Index to symbols used in 631948-1




Leachate Analysed as Water

Heavy Metals(9)

SAL Reference 631948 005 631948 008

Customer Sample Reference TP5 TP8



Type Clay Clay


As (Dissolved) T281 10:1 0.2 µg/l 0.6 (IS)

Cd (Dissolved) T281 10:1 0.02 µg/l 4.1 (IS)

Cr (Dissolved) T281 10:1 1 µg/l 3 (IS)

Cu (Dissolved) T281 10:1 0.5 µg/l 3.5 (IS)

Pb (Dissolved) T281 10:1 0.3 µg/l 1.0 (IS)

Hg (Dissolved) T281 10:1 0.05 µg/l 0.54 (IS)

Ni (Dissolved) T281 10:1 1 µg/l 2 (IS)

Se (Dissolved) T281 10:1 0.5 µg/l <0.5 (IS)

Zn (Dissolved) T281 10:1 2 µg/l 17 (IS)





PAH US EPA 16 (B and K split)



Bottom Depth 0.0


Type Clay


Naphthalene T149 10:1 0.01 µg/l (13) 0.08

Acenaphthylene T149 10:1 0.01 µg/l (13,100) <0.02

Acenaphthene T149 10:1 0.01 µg/l (13) 0.02

Fluorene T149 10:1 0.01 µg/l (13) 0.02

Phenanthrene T149 10:1 0.01 µg/l (13) 0.08

Anthracene T149 10:1 0.01 µg/l (13,100) <0.02

Fluoranthene T149 10:1 0.01 µg/l (13) 0.02

Pyrene T149 10:1 0.01 µg/l (13) 0.02

Benzo(a)Anthracene T149 10:1 0.01 µg/l (13,100) <0.02

Chrysene T149 10:1 0.01 µg/l (100,13) <0.02

Benzo(b)fluoranthene T149 10:1 0.01 µg/l (100,13) <0.02

Benzo(k)fluoranthene T149 10:1 0.01 µg/l (100,13) <0.02

Benzo(a)Pyrene T149 10:1 0.01 µg/l (13,100) <0.02

Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene T149 10:1 0.01 µg/l (100,13) <0.02

Dibenzo(ah)Anthracene T149 10:1 0.01 µg/l (100,13) <0.02

Benzo(ghi)Perylene T149 10:1 0.01 µg/l (13,100) <0.02

PAH(total) T149 10:1 0.01 µg/l 0.24

Value Description

A40 Assisted dried < 40C

M105 Analysis conducted on an "as received" aliquot. Resultsare reported on a dry weight basis where moisture contentwas determined by assisted drying of sample at 105C

10:1 Leachate

AR As Received

M40 Analysis conducted on sample assisted dried at no morethan 40C. Results are reported on a dry weight basis.

N.D. Not Detected

100 LOD determined by sample aliquot used for analysis

13 Results have been blank corrected.

IS Insufficient Sample



631948-1

Method Index

Accreditation Summary

S Analysis was subcontracted

M Analysis is MCERTS accredited

U Analysis is UKAS accredited

N Analysis is not UKAS accredited

Value Description

T102 ICP/OES (HCl extract)

T207 GC/MS (MCERTS)

T2 Grav

T194 Calc (TRL 447 T 4.11)

T16 GC/MS

T6 ICP/OES

T162 Grav (1 Dec) (105 C)

T1 GC/MS (HR)

T21 OX/IR

T82 ICP/OES (Sim)

T149 GC/MS (SIR)

T242 2:1 Extraction/ICP/OES (TRL 447 T1)

T287 Calc TOC/0.58

T8 GC/FID

T7 Probe

T27 PLM

T182 Calc (TRL 447 T4.13)

T281 ICP/MS (Filtered)

Determinand Method TestSample LOD Units Symbol SAL References

pH T7 AR M 001-022

Asbestos ID T27 AR SU 011

Leach Prep T2 AR N 005,008

Soil Organic Matter T287 AR 0.1 % N 004,014

Arsenic T6 M40 2 mg/kg M 001-022

Cadmium T6 M40 1 mg/kg M 001-022

Chromium T6 M40 1 mg/kg M 001-022

Copper T6 M40 1 mg/kg M 001-022

Lead T6 M40 1 mg/kg M 001-022

Mercury T6 M40 1 mg/kg M 001-022

Nickel T6 M40 1 mg/kg M 001-022

Selenium T6 M40 3 mg/kg M 001-022

Zinc T6 M40 1 mg/kg M 001-022

As (Dissolved) T281 10:1 0.2 µg/l U 005,008

Cd (Dissolved) T281 10:1 0.02 µg/l U 005,008

Cr (Dissolved) T281 10:1 1 µg/l U 005,008

Cu (Dissolved) T281 10:1 0.5 µg/l U 005,008

Pb (Dissolved) T281 10:1 0.3 µg/l U 005,008

Hg (Dissolved) T281 10:1 0.05 µg/l U 005,008

Ni (Dissolved) T281 10:1 1 µg/l U 005,008

Se (Dissolved) T281 10:1 0.5 µg/l U 005,008

Zn (Dissolved) T281 10:1 2 µg/l U 005,008

Moisture @105C T162 AR 0.1 % N 001-022

Retained on 10mm sieve T2 M40 0.1 % N 001-022

Hexachlorocyclohexane T16 AR 0.01 mg/kg U 001

Hexachlorobenzene T1 AR 0.01 mg/kg U 001

Heptachlor T16 AR 0.01 mg/kg U 001

Aldrin T16 AR 0.01 mg/kg U 001

Heptachlor epoxide T16 AR 0.01 mg/kg U 001

Chlordane T16 AR 0.01 mg/kg U 001

Endosulphan T16 AR 0.01 mg/kg U 001

DDE T16 AR 0.01 mg/kg U 001

Dieldrin T16 AR 0.01 mg/kg U 001

Endrin T16 AR 0.01 mg/kg U 001

DDD T16 AR 0.01 mg/kg U 001

DDT T16 AR 0.01 mg/kg U 001

Dichlorvos T16 AR 0.01 mg/kg U 001

Mevinphos T16 AR 0.01 mg/kg U 001

Dimethoate T16 AR 0.01 mg/kg U 001



631948-1


Diazinon T16 AR 0.01 mg/kg U 001

Pirimiphos methyl T16 AR 0.01 mg/kg U 001

Malathion T16 AR 0.01 mg/kg U 001

Fenitrothion T16 AR 0.01 mg/kg U 001

Parathion T16 AR 0.01 mg/kg U 001

Azinphos methyl T16 AR 0.01 mg/kg U 001

Naphthalene T207 M105 0.1 mg/kg M 006,008-009

Acenaphthylene T207 M105 0.1 mg/kg U 006,008-009

Acenaphthene T207 M105 0.1 mg/kg M 006,008-009

Fluorene T207 M105 0.1 mg/kg M 006,008-009

Phenanthrene T207 M105 0.1 mg/kg M 006,008-009

Anthracene T207 M105 0.1 mg/kg U 006,008-009

Fluoranthene T207 M105 0.1 mg/kg M 006,008-009

Pyrene T207 M105 0.1 mg/kg M 006,008-009

Benzo(a)Anthracene T207 M105 0.1 mg/kg M 006,008-009

Chrysene T207 M105 0.1 mg/kg M 006,008-009

Benzo(b)fluoranthene T207 M105 0.1 mg/kg M 006,008-009

Benzo(k)fluoranthene T207 M105 0.1 mg/kg M 006,008-009

Benzo(a)Pyrene T207 M105 0.1 mg/kg M 006,008-009

Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene T207 M105 0.1 mg/kg M 006,008-009

Dibenzo(ah)Anthracene T207 M105 0.1 mg/kg M 006,008-009

Benzo(ghi)Perylene T207 M105 0.1 mg/kg M 006,008-009

PAH(total) T207 M105 0.1 mg/kg U 006,008-009

Naphthalene T149 10:1 0.01 µg/l U 008

Acenaphthylene T149 10:1 0.01 µg/l U 008

Acenaphthene T149 10:1 0.01 µg/l U 008

Fluorene T149 10:1 0.01 µg/l U 008

Phenanthrene T149 10:1 0.01 µg/l U 008

Anthracene T149 10:1 0.01 µg/l U 008

Fluoranthene T149 10:1 0.01 µg/l U 008

Pyrene T149 10:1 0.01 µg/l U 008

Benzo(a)Anthracene T149 10:1 0.01 µg/l U 008

Chrysene T149 10:1 0.01 µg/l U 008

Benzo(b)fluoranthene T149 10:1 0.01 µg/l U 008

Benzo(k)fluoranthene T149 10:1 0.01 µg/l U 008

Benzo(a)Pyrene T149 10:1 0.01 µg/l U 008

Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene T149 10:1 0.01 µg/l U 008

Dibenzo(ah)Anthracene T149 10:1 0.01 µg/l U 008

Benzo(ghi)Perylene T149 10:1 0.01 µg/l U 008

PAH(total) T149 10:1 0.01 µg/l U 008

TPH (C8-C10) T8 M105 1 mg/kg N 005,011

TPH (C10-C12) T8 M105 1 mg/kg U 005,011

TPH (C12-C16) T8 M105 1 mg/kg U 005,011

TPH (C16-C21) T8 M105 1 mg/kg U 005,011

TPH (C21-C35) T8 M105 1 mg/kg U 005,011

pH T7 A40 U 023-028

SO4(2:1) as SO3 T82 A40 50 mg/l N 023-028

SO4(Total) T102 AR 0.01 % N 023-028

(Total Potential) SO4(Total) Expressed as SO4 T182 AR 0.15 % N 023-028

(Water Soluble) SO4(2:1) expressed as SO4 T242 AR 10 mg/l N 023-028

(Oxidisable) Sulphide Expressed as SO4 T194 AR 0.01 % N 023-028

Sulphur (total) T21 AR 0.05 % N 023-028



631948-1




CornbrookManchester

M16 9FETel : 0161 874 2400Fax : 0161 874 2468


Date of Report: 03-Mar-2017


Customer Contact: Mr Simon Wilkinson

Customer Job Reference: 4130/2Customer Purchase Order: 4130/2/swCustomer Site Reference: battledown


Date Analysis Completed: 03-Mar-2017







1549



Page 1 of 3

636398-1



Project Site: battledown



MCERTS Preparation



Bottom Depth 0.0


Type Topsoil


Moisture @105C T162 AR 0.1 % 64

Retained on 10mm sieve T2 M40 0.1 % <0.1





Heavy Metals(9)



Bottom Depth 0.0


Type Topsoil


Arsenic T6 M40 2 mg/kg 11

Cadmium T6 M40 1 mg/kg <1

Chromium T6 M40 1 mg/kg 35

Copper T6 M40 1 mg/kg 44

Lead T6 M40 1 mg/kg 1900

Mercury T6 M40 1 mg/kg <1

Nickel T6 M40 1 mg/kg 20

Selenium T6 M40 3 mg/kg <3

Zinc T6 M40 1 mg/kg 300





Heavy Metals(9)



Bottom Depth 0.0


Type Topsoil


As (Dissolved) T281 10:1 0.2 µg/l 7.6

Cd (Dissolved) T281 10:1 0.02 µg/l 0.18

Cr (Dissolved) T281 10:1 1 µg/l 2

Cu (Dissolved) T281 10:1 0.5 µg/l 1.8

Pb (Dissolved) T281 10:1 0.3 µg/l 1.9

Hg (Dissolved) T281 10:1 0.05 µg/l <0.05

Ni (Dissolved) T281 10:1 1 µg/l 1

Se (Dissolved) T281 10:1 0.5 µg/l 0.7

Zn (Dissolved) T281 10:1 2 µg/l 7

Value Description



636398-1

Method Index

Accreditation Summary

M40 Analysis conducted on sampleassisted dried at no more than 40C.Results are reported on a dry weightbasis.

10:1 Leachate

AR As Received




Value Description

T2 Grav

T6 ICP/OES

T162 Grav (1 Dec) (105 C)

T281 ICP/MS (Filtered)


Arsenic T6 M40 2 mg/kg M 001

Cadmium T6 M40 1 mg/kg M 001

Chromium T6 M40 1 mg/kg M 001

Copper T6 M40 1 mg/kg M 001

Lead T6 M40 1 mg/kg M 001

Mercury T6 M40 1 mg/kg M 001

Nickel T6 M40 1 mg/kg M 001

Selenium T6 M40 3 mg/kg M 001

Zinc T6 M40 1 mg/kg M 001

As (Dissolved) T281 10:1 0.2 µg/l U 001

Cd (Dissolved) T281 10:1 0.02 µg/l U 001

Cr (Dissolved) T281 10:1 1 µg/l U 001

Cu (Dissolved) T281 10:1 0.5 µg/l U 001

Pb (Dissolved) T281 10:1 0.3 µg/l U 001

Hg (Dissolved) T281 10:1 0.05 µg/l U 001

Ni (Dissolved) T281 10:1 1 µg/l U 001

Se (Dissolved) T281 10:1 0.5 µg/l U 001

Zn (Dissolved) T281 10:1 2 µg/l U 001

Moisture @105C T162 AR 0.1 % N 001

Retained on 10mm sieve T2 M40 0.1 % N 001



636398-1

Job No. 4130/2

APPENDIX 4

WASTE CLASSIFICATION CALCULATIONS

AND WASTE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA (WAC)

TEST RESULTS

Waste Classification Worksheet (October 2013) Wilson Associates Consulting Engineering Geologists and Geo-Environmental Engineers

Wilson Associates (Consulting) Limited Registered Office: 36 Brunswick Road, Gloucester GL1 1JJCompany No. 6133365

Job No:

Site Name:

Soil/Stratum:

SubstanceAtomic weight Selected compound Molecular mass Concentration Category of danger Risk Phase H1 H2 H3a (iii) H5 H9 H13 H15

mg/kg % %

explo

sive

oxidi

sing

flamm

able

irrita

nt

irrita

nt

harm

ful

toxic

very

toxic

carce

noge

nic ca

tegor

y

1 and

2

carce

noge

nic ca

tegor

y

3

corro

sive b

urns

corro

sive s

ever

e bur

ns

infec

tious

toxic

repr

oduc

tion

categ

ory 1

and 2

toxic

repr

oduc

tion

categ

ory 3

mutag

enic

categ

ory

1 and

2

mutag

enic

categ

ory

3

conta

ct wi

th wa

ter, a

ir or

acid

relea

ses t

oxic

gase

s

conta

ct wi

th wa

ter, a

ir or

acid

relea

ses v

ery t

oxic

gase

s

sens

itizing

dang

erou

s to o

zone

very

toxic

AND

may c

ause

lon

g ter

m eff

ects

toxic

AND

may c

ause

long

ter

m eff

ects

harm

ful an

d may

caus

e lon

g ter

m eff

ects

ecoto

xic : n

on-a

quati

c en

viron

ment

capa

ble of

yield

ing

anoth

er su

bstan

ce po

st dis

posl

ARSENIC 74.92 24.00 0.0024 Arsenic trioxide 197.84 0.00633764 Carcinogenic Cat 1 R45 0.00634

T+ R28 0.00634

C R34 0.00634 0.00634

N R50/53 0.00634

CADMIUM 112.41 1.00 0.0001 Cadmium chloride 183.32 0.000163082 Carcinogenic Cat 2 R45 0.00016

Mutagenic Cat 2 R46 0.00016

Reproduction Cat 2 R60, 61 0.00016

T+ R26 0.00016

T R25, 48/23/25 0.00016

N R50/53 0.00016

CHROMIUM 52 62.00 0.0062 Chromium (III) chromate 452 0.053892308 O R8 0.05389

Carcinogenic Cat 2 R45 0.05389

C R35/43 0.05389

N R50/53 0.05389

CHROMIUM 52 0 Chromium (VI) trioxide 100 0 Carcinogenic Cat 1 R45 0.00000

O R9 0.00000


Reproduction Cat 3 R62 0.00000

T+ R26 0.00000

T R24/25, 48, 23 0.00000

N R50-53 0.00000

C R35 R42/43 0.00000 0.00000

LEAD 207.2 270.00 0.027 Lead (II) sulphate 303.26 0.039517471 Reproduction Cat 1 R61 0.03952


Xn R20/22/33 0.03952

N R50/53 0.03952

MERCURY 200.59 1.00 0.0001 Mercury 200.59 0.0001 T R23, 33 0.00010

N R50/53 0.00010

SELENIUM 78.96 3.00 0.0003 Selenium 78.96 0.0003 T R23/25 R33 0.00030

N R53 0.00030

BORON 10.81 0 Boron trifluoride 67.82 0 Reacts with water R14

T+ R26/28 0.00000

C R35 0.00000

COPPER 63.55 29.00 0.0029 Copper sulphate 159.62 0.007283997 Xn R22 0.00728

Xi R36/38 0.00728

N R50/53 0.00728

NICKEL 58.69 38.00 0.0038 Nickel (II) sulphide 122.7 0.007944454 Carcinogenic Cat 3 R49 0.00794

Xn R43 0.00794 0.00794

N R50/53 0.00794

ZINC 65.38 140.00 0.014 Zinc oxide 81.41 0.017432548 N R50/53 0.01743

BTEX 78.11 0 Benzene 78.11 0 Carcinogenic Cat 1 R45 0.00000


T R48/23/24/25 0.00000

N R51-53 0.00000

F R11 0.00000

Xi R36/38 0.00000

Xn R65 0.00000

BTEX 92.14 0 Toluene 92.14 0 F R11 0.00000


Xn R48/20, 65

Xi R38 R67 0.00000

BTEX 106.17 0 Ethlybenzene 106.17 0 F R11 0.00634

Xn R20 0.00000

N R51-53 0.00000

BTEX 106.16 0 Xylenes 106.16 0 F R10 0.00000

N R51-53 0.00000

Xn R20/21 0.00000

Xi R38 0.00000

GRO 103.37 3.00 0.0003 C5-C10 103.37 0.0003 F+ R12 0.00030

Carcinogenic Cat 2 R45 0.00030

N R51-53 0.00030

Xn R65 0.00030

DRO 183.33 16.00 0.0016 C10-C25 183.33 0.0016 Carcinogenic Cat 3 R40 0.00160

N R51-53 0.00160

Xn R65 0.00160

MINERAL OIL 365 89.00 0.0089 C25-C44 365 0.0089 Carcinogenic Cat 2 R45 0.00890


N R51-53 0.00890


Xn R65 0.00890

PAH 252 0.20 0.00002 benzo-a-pyrene 252 0.00002 Carcinogenic Cat 2 R45 0.00002


Xi R43 0.00002

Reproduction Cat 2 R60,R61 0.00002

N R50/53 0.00002

PAH 128 0.20 0.00002 naphthalene 128 0.00002 Carcinogenic Cat 3 R40 0.00002

Xn R22 0.00002

N R50/53 0.00002

PCB 337.91 0 PCB 337.91 0 N R33-50/53 0.00000

Total (%) 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.00 N/A N/A 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.00 N/A N/A

Threshold (%) Appendix C1 Appendix C2 Appendix C3 ≥5% ≥20% ≥25% ≥3% ≥0.1% ≥0.1% ≥1% ≥5% ≥1% Appendix C9 ≥0.5% ≥5% ≥0.1% ≥1% Appendix C12

Appendix C12

≥1%* ≥0.1% ≥0.25% ≥2.5% ≥25% N/A N/A

* =

T+ very toxic Xn harmfulT toxic O combustibleN ecotoxic C causes burnsF flammable Xi causes sensitisation

RECORDED CONCENTRATIONS OF ELEMENT GROUPS TESTED AND RESPECTIVE RISK PHRASES (as % of selected compound)

use 1% unless specific conc limits available

H6 H7 H8 H10 H12 H14

LEGEND

*Total Concentration

N.B. The total element concentration used in this analysis equates to the highest recorded concentration obtained from laboratory testing. The respective compound has been selected with reference to Table 3.2 of Part 3 of Annex VI of the CLP Regulation, 2009 (Directive 67/548/EEC).

H11

4130/2

Battledown

COMPOSITE (all soil types)

H4

HAZARD CLASS FOR RESPECTIVE RISK PHRASE




CornbrookManchester

M16 9FETel : 0161 874 2400Fax : 0161 874 2468


Date of Report: 17-Feb-2017


Customer Contact: Mr Simon Wilkinson

Customer Job Reference: 4130/2Customer Purchase Order: 4130/2/swCustomer Site Reference: Battledown


Date Analysis Completed: 16-Feb-2017







1549



Page 1 of 6

631949-1

Waste Acceptance Criteria

Following the recommendation from the Environment Agency (England and Wales)*, the leachate preparation in this report has been carried out to BS EN 12457-2 : One Stage

batch test at a liquid to solid ratio of 10 l/kg. This is also compliant with Schedule 10 of the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010.

Note : This is the minimum amount of testing which is required.

Further testing may be required if :

- evidence of immediately leachable parameters becomes available.

- evidence to indicate that the sample could be classified as hazardous under H1-H14 of the Waste(England and Wales) Regulations 2011(as amended) becomes available.

Acceptance of waste at landfill is always at the discretion of the Landfill Operator.

* Waste Sampling and Testing for Disposal at Landfill, EBPRI 11507B, Environment Agency (England and Wales) March 2013

Customer Sample Reference : Composite

SAL Sample Reference : 631949 001

Project Site : Battledown

Customer Reference : 4130/2

Date Sampled : 02-FEB-2017

Top Depth : 0.1

Bottom Depth : 1.5

Type : Sandy Soil

Soil Result Inert WasteLandfill

Stable nonreactive

Hazardous WasteLandfill

Determinand Technique LOD Units Symbol

Acid Neutralising Capacity (pH 4) Titration 2 Mol/kg N <2

Acid Neutralising Capacity (pH 7) Titration 2 Mol/kg N <2

BTEX (Sum) Calc 0.040 mg/kg U <0.040 6.0

Loss on Ignition Grav 0.1 % N 11 10.0

PAH (Sum) Calc 1.6 mg/kg N <1.6 100.0

PCB EC7 (Sum) Calc 0.00035 mg/kg U <0.00035 1.0

pH Probe M 6.3 > 6.0

Total Organic Carbon OX/IR 0.1 % N 0.5 3.0 5.0 6.0

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons C10-C40 (Sum) Calc 1 mg/kg N (13) <1 500.0

Data for BS EN 12457-2 (10:1) Result Inert WasteLandfill

Stable nonreactive

Hazardous WasteLandfill

Determinand Technique LOD Units Symbol

Antimony Calc WAC ICP/MS 0.010 mg/kg N <0.010 0.06 0.7 5.0

Arsenic Calc WAC ICP/MS 0.0020 mg/kg N <0.0020 0.5 2.0 25.0

Barium Calc WAC ICP/MS 0.010 mg/kg N <0.010 20.0 100.0 300.0

Cadmium Calc WAC ICP/MS 0.00020 mg/kg N 0.00024 0.04 1.0 5.0

Chloride Calc (W) 10 mg/kg N <10 800.0 15000.0 25000.0

Chromium Calc WAC ICP/MS 0.010 mg/kg N <0.010 0.5 10.0 70.0

Copper Calc WAC ICP/MS 0.0050 mg/kg N <0.0050 2.0 50.0 100.0

Dissolved Organic Carbon Calc 10 mg/kg N <10 500.0 800.0 1000.0

Dissolved Organic Carbon Calc 10 mg/kg N 10 500.0 800.0 1000.0

Fluoride Calc (W) 0.50 mg/kg N <0.50 10.0 150.0 500.0

Lead Calc WAC ICP/MS 0.0030 mg/kg N 0.0052 0.5 10.0 50.0

Mercury Calc WAC ICP/MS 0.00050 mg/kg N <0.00050 0.01 0.2 2.0

Molybdenum Calc WAC ICP/MS 0.010 mg/kg N <0.010 0.5 10.0 30.0

Nickel Calc WAC ICP/MS 0.010 mg/kg N <0.010 0.4 10.0 40.0

Phenols (Total-Mono) Calc 1.0 mg/kg N <1.0 1.0

Selenium Calc WAC ICP/MS 0.0050 mg/kg N <0.0050 0.1 0.5 7.0

Sulphate Calc (W) 5 mg/kg N 24 1000.0 20000.0 50000.0

Total Dissolved Solids Calc WAC ICP/MS 1000 mg/kg N <1000 4000.0 60000.0 100000.0

Zinc Calc WAC ICP/MS 0.020 mg/kg N 0.041 4.0 50.0 200.0



631949-1





MCERTS Preparation


Customer Sample Reference Composite

Test Sample AR

Top Depth 0.1

Bottom Depth 1.5


Type Sandy Soil

Determinand Method LOD Units Symbol

Moisture @105C Grav (1 Dec) (105 C) 0.1 % N 23

Retained on 10mm sieve Grav 0.1 % N <0.1





Asbestos ID



Test Sample AR

Top Depth 0.1

Bottom Depth 1.5


Type Sandy Soil


Asbestos ID PLM SU N.D.





BTEX



Test Sample M105

Top Depth 0.1

Bottom Depth 1.5


Type Sandy Soil


Benzene GC/MS (Head Space)(MCERTS) 10 µg/kg M (13) <10

Toluene GC/MS (Head Space)(MCERTS) 10 µg/kg M <10

EthylBenzene GC/MS (Head Space)(MCERTS) 10 µg/kg M <10

Meta/Para-Xylene GC/MS (Head Space)(MCERTS) 10 µg/kg M <10

Ortho-Xylene GC/MS (Head Space)(MCERTS) 10 µg/kg M <10



631949-1





PCB EC7



Test Sample M105

Top Depth 0.1

Bottom Depth 1.5


Type Sandy Soil


Polychlorinated biphenyl BZ#28 GC/MS (HR) (MCERTS) 0.05 µg/kg M <0.05











Total and Speciated USEPA16 PAH



Test Sample M105

Top Depth 0.1

Bottom Depth 1.5


Type Sandy Soil


Naphthalene GC/MS (MCERTS) 0.1 mg/kg M <0.1

Acenaphthylene GC/MS (MCERTS) 0.1 mg/kg U <0.1

Acenaphthene GC/MS (MCERTS) 0.1 mg/kg M <0.1

Fluorene GC/MS (MCERTS) 0.1 mg/kg M <0.1

Phenanthrene GC/MS (MCERTS) 0.1 mg/kg M <0.1

Anthracene GC/MS (MCERTS) 0.1 mg/kg U <0.1

Fluoranthene GC/MS (MCERTS) 0.1 mg/kg M <0.1

Pyrene GC/MS (MCERTS) 0.1 mg/kg M <0.1

Benzo(a)Anthracene GC/MS (MCERTS) 0.1 mg/kg M <0.1

Chrysene GC/MS (MCERTS) 0.1 mg/kg M <0.1

Benzo(b/k)Fluoranthene GC/MS (MCERTS) 0.1 mg/kg M <0.1

Benzo(a)Pyrene GC/MS (MCERTS) 0.1 mg/kg M <0.1

Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene GC/MS (MCERTS) 0.1 mg/kg M <0.1

Dibenzo(ah)Anthracene GC/MS (MCERTS) 0.1 mg/kg M <0.1

Benzo(ghi)Perylene GC/MS (MCERTS) 0.1 mg/kg M <0.1

Coronene GC/MS 0.1 mg/kg N <0.1

Phenol GC/MS (MCERTS) 0.1 mg/kg M <0.1

Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (Total) GC/MS (MCERTS) 0.1 mg/kg U <0.1



631949-1






TPH



Test Sample M105

Top Depth 0.1

Bottom Depth 1.5


Type Sandy Soil


Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons GC/FID 1 mg/kg M (13) <1

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (C35-C40) GC/FID 1 mg/kg N (13) <1




Leachate to BS EN12457-2 (10:1)

Analysed as Water

Waste Acceptance Criteria



Test Sample 10:1

Top Depth 0.1

Bottom Depth 1.5


Type Sandy Soil


Arsenic (Dissolved) ICP/MS (Filtered) 0.2 µg/l U <0.2

Barium (Dissolved) ICP/MS (Filtered) 1 µg/l U <1

Molybdenum (Dissolved) ICP/MS (Filtered) 1 µg/l N <1

Total Dissolved Solids Grav 100 mg/l N <100

Phenols (Total-Mono) Colorimetry 0.1 mg/l U <0.1

Dissolved Organic Carbon OX/IR 1 mg/l N 1

Electrical Conductivity Probe 10 µS/cm N <10

Antimony (Dissolved) ICP/MS (Filtered) 1 µg/l U <1

Cadmium (Dissolved) ICP/MS (Filtered) 0.02 µg/l U 0.02

Chromium (Dissolved) ICP/MS (Filtered) 1 µg/l U <1

Copper (Dissolved) ICP/MS (Filtered) 0.5 µg/l U <0.5

Lead (Dissolved) ICP/MS (Filtered) 0.3 µg/l U 0.5

Mercury (Dissolved) ICP/MS (Filtered) 0.05 µg/l U <0.05

Nickel (Dissolved) ICP/MS (Filtered) 1 µg/l U <1

Selenium (Dissolved) ICP/MS (Filtered) 0.5 µg/l U <0.5

Zinc (Dissolved) ICP/MS (Filtered) 2 µg/l U 4

Chloride Discrete Analyser 1 mg/l U <1

Fluoride Discrete Analyser 0.05 mg/l U <0.05

Sulphate Discrete Analyser 0.5 mg/l U 2.4

Value Description

A40 Assisted dried < 40C

AR As Received

10:1 S Data for BS EN 12457-2 (10:1)

10:1 Leachate to BS EN 12457-2 (10:1)

M105 Analysis conducted on an "as received"aliquot. Results are reported on a dryweight basis where moisture content wasdetermined by assisted drying of sampleat 105C

N.D. Not Detected

13 Results have been blank corrected.

S Analysis was subcontracted





631949-1

Notes


Asbestos was subcontracted to REC Asbestos.



631949-1

Job No. 4130/2

APPENDIX 5

GAS / WATER MONITORING RESULTS

Report No. 4130/2

Monitoring undertaken 10 February 2017

Atmospheric Pressure

(mb) and Trend

Temperature (°C) and

Weather

BH No

Time (secs/ mins)

Concentrations (%) Flow rates time

(secs/mins)

Flow rates (l/hr)

Standing water level

(m, bgl)

Depth and horizon of response

zone (m,bgl)

CH4 CO2 O2

1005 falling

2° C overcast

WS1 15s 30s 45s 1m 2m 3m 4m 5m

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3

19.4 19.2 19.1 19.1 19.2 19.2 19.3 19.3

15s 30s 45s 1m 2m 3m

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.04 1-3m

Max Peak Steady Values

0.0 0.0

0.6 0.3


0.0 0.0

1005 falling

2° C overcast

WS2 15s 30s 45s 1m 2m 3m

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3

19.5 19.4 19.4 19.5 19.5 19.5

15s 30s 45s 1m 2m 3m 4m

0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0

0.22 1-3m


0.0 0.0

0.5 0.4


0.2 0.1

1005 falling

2° C overcast

WS4 15s 30s 45s 1m

15s 30s 45s 1m

cover and bung

removed concrete

broken up - unable to monitor



1005 falling

2° C overcast

WS5 15s 30s 45s 1m 2m 3m 4m 5m

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

19.6 19.6 19.5 19.5 19.4 19.5

15s 30s 45s 1m 2m 3m 4m 5m

0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1

0.68 1-2m


0.0 0.0

0.3 0.3


0.3 0.3

1005 falling

2° C overcast

WS6 15s 30s 45s 1m 2m 3m 4m 5m

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1

19.9 19.9 19.9 19.9 19.9 19.9 19.9 19.9

15s 30s 45s 1m 2m 3m 4m 5m

0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0

0.32 1-3m


0.0 0.0

0.2 0.2


0.1 0.1

Report No. 4130/2



(mb) and Trend


Weather

BH No

Time (secs/ mins)


(secs/mins)

Flow rates (l/hr)


(m, bgl)


zone (m,bgl)

CH4 CO2 O2

975 falling

8° C windy/gales,

generally clear

WS1 15s 30s 45s 1m 2m 3m 4m

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.8 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2

19.5 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.4 19.4 19.4

15s 30s 45s 1m 2m 3m

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.52 1-3m


0.0 0.0

0.8 0.3


0.0 0.0

975 falling

8° C windy/gales,

generally clear

WS2 15s 30s 45s 1m 2m 3m 4m

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4

15s 30s 45s 1m 2m 3m 4m

-0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.1

0.3 1-3m


0.0 0.0

0.3 0.2


0.0 -0.1

975 falling

8° C windy/gales,

generally clear

WS4 15s 30s 45s 1m 2m 3m 4m 5m

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

19.4 19.1 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0

15s 30s 45s 1m 3m 4m

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.72 1-3m


0.0 0.0

0.4 0.4


0.0 0.0

975 falling

8° C windy/gales,

generally clear

WS5 15s 30s 45s 1m 2m 3m 4m

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

19.4 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3

15s 30s 45s 1m 2m 3m

0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.02 1-2m


0.0 0.0

0.3 0.3


0.2 0.0

975 falling

8° C windy/gales,

generally clear

WS6 15s 30s 45s 1m 2m 3m 4m

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1

19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7

15s 30s 45s 1m 2m 3m 4m

0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

0.46 1-3m


0.0 0.0

0.2 0.2


0.3 0.1

Report No. 4130/2



(mb) and Trend


Weather

BH No

Time (secs/ mins)


(secs/mins)

Flow rates (l/hr)


(m, bgl)


zone (m,bgl)

CH4 CO2 O2

970 falling

8° C overcast,

windy

WS1 15s 30s 45s 1m 2m 3m 4m 5m

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

20.9 20.7 20.9 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0

15s 30s 45s 1m 2m 3m 4m

0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

1.7 bailed out c 17 hours

later 2.6

1-3m


0.0 0.0

0.7 0.2


0.2 0.1

970 falling

8° C overcast,

windy

WS2 15s 30s 45s 1m 2m 3m

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

21.3 21.3 21.3 21.3 21.5 21.5

15s 30s 45s 1m 2m 3m

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2

0.7 bailed out. c17 hours

later 1.93

1-3m


0.0 0.0

0.2 0.1


0.2 0.2

970 falling

8° C overcast,

windy

WS4 (suspected bung tampering)

15s 30s 45s 1m 2m 3m 4m

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

21.4 21.4 21.4 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5

15s 30s 45s 1m 3m

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.32 bailed out

c17 hours

later 2.37

1-3m


0.0 0.0

0.1 0.1


0.0 0.0

970 falling

8° C overcast,

windy

WS5 15s 30s 45s 1m 2m 3m

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

21.7 21.7 21.7 21.7 21.8 21.9

15s 30s 45s 1m 2m 3m 4m

0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1


later 1.81

1-2m


0.0 0.0

0.2 0.2


0.3 0.1

970 falling

8° C overcast,

windy

WS6 15s 30s 45s 1m 2m 3m 4m 5m

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1

22.2 22.2 22.2 22.3 22.3 22.3 22.3 22.3

15s 30s 45s 1m 2m 3m

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0


later 0.64

1-3m

suspected bung

tampering


0.0 0.0

0.2 0.2


0.1 0.0