a-08g-7 south line gd report final
DESCRIPTION
site investigationTRANSCRIPT
TWAO Document Ref. A-08g-7Environmental Statement Volume IV
Supporting Document - South Line Geotechnical Design ReportMott MacDonald Internal Ref. 312694/RPT040
September 2013
312694 EST YHE RPT40 B
http://localhost:3579/UCdoc~EUNAPiMS/1541640933/312694 RPT40 South Line GDR FINAL FOR ISSUE TWAO.doc June 2013
South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/RPT40C
South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/RPT40
September 2013
Metro and Leeds City Council
Mott MacDonald, 2nd Floor, 2 Brewery Wharf, Kendell Street, Leeds LS10 1JR, United Kingdom
T +44 (0)113 394 6700 F +44 (0)113 394 6701 W www.mottmac.com
Wellington House 40 – 50 Wellington Street Leeds LS1 2DE
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT/040 September 2013 http://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
Chapter Title Page
1. Introduction 1
1.1 General ___________________________________________________________________________ 1 1.2 Sources of Information _______________________________________________________________ 2 1.3 Report Structure ____________________________________________________________________ 2
2. General Description of the Site and Proposed Construction 3
2.1 Site Location & Description ___________________________________________________________ 3 2.2 Site History & Land Use ______________________________________________________________ 4 2.3 Geology __________________________________________________________________________ 4 2.4 Hydrogeology ______________________________________________________________________ 5 2.5 Hydrology _________________________________________________________________________ 5 2.6 Mining ____________________________________________________________________________ 5 2.7 Seismicity of the Area ________________________________________________________________ 6 2.8 Contaminated Land & Pollution Incidents _________________________________________________ 6 2.9 Other Relevant Information ___________________________________________________________ 6
3. General Offline Highway Works 8
3.1 Description ________________________________________________________________________ 8 3.2 Source Documents __________________________________________________________________ 8 3.3 Ground Conditions __________________________________________________________________ 8 3.4 Characteristic Parameters ___________________________________________________________ 11 3.5 Pavement Design __________________________________________________________________ 15 3.6 Concrete Classification ______________________________________________________________ 15 3.7 Contamination and Waste Implications _________________________________________________ 16 3.7.1 Contamination Testing ______________________________________________________________ 16 3.7.2 Waste Categorisation _______________________________________________________________ 17 3.8 Earthworks Assessment _____________________________________________________________ 18 3.8.1 Waterloo Street to Bowman Lane ______________________________________________________ 18 3.8.2 Chadwick Street ___________________________________________________________________ 18 3.8.3 Carlisle Road to South Accommodation Road ____________________________________________ 19 3.8.4 Hunslet Road _____________________________________________________________________ 19 3.9 Gas Risk Assessment ______________________________________________________________ 19
4. General Online Highway Works 21
4.1 Description _______________________________________________________________________ 21 4.2 Source Documents _________________________________________________________________ 21 4.3 Ground Conditions _________________________________________________________________ 21 4.4 Pavement Design __________________________________________________________________ 21 4.5 Contamination and Waste Implications _________________________________________________ 21 4.6 Earthworks Assessment _____________________________________________________________ 22
5. Balm Road Bridge 23
5.1 Description _______________________________________________________________________ 23 5.2 Source Documents _________________________________________________________________ 23 5.3 Assumptions ______________________________________________________________________ 23 5.4 Ground Conditions _________________________________________________________________ 23
Contents
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT/040 September 2013 http://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
5.5 Characteristic Parameters ___________________________________________________________ 24 5.6 Approach Embankments ____________________________________________________________ 27 5.7 Approach Retaining Walls ___________________________________________________________ 27 5.8 Foundations ______________________________________________________________________ 28 5.9 Concrete Classification ______________________________________________________________ 28 5.10 Contamination and Waste Implications _________________________________________________ 29 5.10.1 Contamination Testing ______________________________________________________________ 29 5.10.2 Waste Categorisation _______________________________________________________________ 30 5.11 Earthworks Assessment _____________________________________________________________ 30 5.12 Gas Risk Assessment ______________________________________________________________ 31
6. Belle Isle Route 32
6.1 Description _______________________________________________________________________ 32 6.2 History __________________________________________________________________________ 33 6.3 Geology _________________________________________________________________________ 33 6.4 Coal Mining ______________________________________________________________________ 33 6.5 Proven Ground Conditions ___________________________________________________________ 34 6.6 Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Assessment ________________________________________ 34 6.6.1 Foundations ______________________________________________________________________ 35 6.6.1.1 NGT Stops _______________________________________________________________________ 35 6.6.1.2 Belle Isle Circus ___________________________________________________________________ 35 6.6.2 Earthworks _______________________________________________________________________ 35 6.6.2.1 Access Embankment into the Stourton Park & Ride Site ____________________________________ 35 6.6.2.2 Off Street Parking and Bus Lay-bys ____________________________________________________ 36
7. Stourton Park and Ride 37
7.1 Description _______________________________________________________________________ 37 7.2 Ground Conditions _________________________________________________________________ 37 7.2.1 Topsoil __________________________________________________________________________ 37 7.2.2 Opencast Backfill __________________________________________________________________ 37 7.2.3 Weathered Coal Measures (Residual Soils) ______________________________________________ 37 7.2.4 Lower Coal Measures Bedrock _______________________________________________________ 37 7.2.5 Coal Seams ______________________________________________________________________ 38 7.3 Mining ___________________________________________________________________________ 38 7.4 Groundwater Conditions _____________________________________________________________ 38 7.5 Foundations ______________________________________________________________________ 39 7.5.1 Foundations on rock (Depot Building) __________________________________________________ 39 7.5.2 Foundations on opencast backfill ______________________________________________________ 40 7.5.2.1 Geotechnical data _________________________________________________________________ 40 7.5.2.2 Amenity Building ___________________________________________________________________ 40 7.6 Embankments ____________________________________________________________________ 40 7.7 Depot Cutting _____________________________________________________________________ 40 7.8 Depot Retaining Structure ___________________________________________________________ 40 7.9 Settlement _______________________________________________________________________ 41 7.10 Pavement Design __________________________________________________________________ 41 7.11 Concrete Classification ______________________________________________________________ 42 7.12 Drainage _________________________________________________________________________ 42 7.13 Contamination and Waste Implications _________________________________________________ 42 7.14 Earthworks Assessment _____________________________________________________________ 42 7.15 Gas Risk Assessment ______________________________________________________________ 43
8. Preliminary Geotechnical and Contamination Risk Assessment 45
9. Recommendations for Further Work 51
10. References 52
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT/040 September 2013 http://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
Appendices 53
Appendix A. Contamination and Waste Assessment Methodology ______________________________________ 54 A.1. Scope of Testing __________________________________________________________________ 54 A.2. Assessment Criteria ________________________________________________________________ 56 A.2.1. Human Health ____________________________________________________________________ 56 A.2.2. Leachate and Groundwater __________________________________________________________ 58 A.2.3. Waste Categorisation _______________________________________________________________ 59 A.2.4. Summary of Contamination Testing ____________________________________________________ 61 A.2.5. CAT Waste Results ________________________________________________________________ 62 A.3. Gas Monitoring Methodology _________________________________________________________ 63 A.3.1. Site Characteristic hazardous gas flow rate ______________________________________________ 63 Appendix B. Calculation Methodology ____________________________________________________________ 65 B.1. Bearing Resistance Methodology ______________________________________________________ 65 B.2. Slope Stability Methodology __________________________________________________________ 66 Appendix C. Limitations _______________________________________________________________________ 68
Figures
Figure 2.1: Route Overview ____________________________________________________________________ 3 Figure 6.1: Proposed Belle Isle Route ___________________________________________________________ 32
Tables
Table 2.1: Description of the South Route _________________________________________________________ 4 Table 3.1: Reference Drawings and Boreholes for General Offline Sections ______________________________ 9 Table 3.2: General Ground Conditions for Waterloo Street to Bowman Lane ______________________________ 9 Table 3.3: General Ground Conditions for Chadwick Street __________________________________________ 10 Table 3.4: General Ground Conditions for Carlisle Road to South Accommodation Road ___________________ 10 Table 3.5: General Ground Conditions for Hunslet Road ____________________________________________ 11 Table 3.6: Characteristic Parameters for Soils Encountered __________________________________________ 12 Table 3.7: Characteristic Parameters for Lower Coal Measures _______________________________________ 14 Table 3.8: CBR Correlation with Plasticity Index ___________________________________________________ 15 Table 3.9: Sulphate and pH Values for Waterloo Street to Bowman Lane _______________________________ 15 Table 3.10: Sulphate and pH Values for Chadwick Street _____________________________________________ 15 Table 3.11: Sulphate and pH Values for Carlisle Road to South Accomodation Road _______________________ 16 Table 3.12: Preliminary Concrete Class for Offline Sections ___________________________________________ 16 Table 3.13: Offline Sections Contamination Testing Summary _________________________________________ 16 Table 3.14: Offline Sections Waste Acceptance Criteria Summary ______________________________________ 17 Table 3.15: Preliminary Cut and Fill Volumes for Offline Sections- South Line _____________________________ 18 Table 3.16: Offline Sections - Characteristic Gas Situation ____________________________________________ 20 Table 4.1: Preliminary Cut and Fill Volumes for General Online Highways Works _________________________ 22 Table 5.1: Summary of Ground Conditions _______________________________________________________ 24 Table 5.2: Characteristic Parameters for River Terrace Deposits ______________________________________ 25 Table 5.3: Characteristic Parameters for Lower Coal Measures _______________________________________ 26 Table 5.4: Preliminary Slope Stability Analysis ____________________________________________________ 27 Table 5.5: Applied Loads for the Pad Foundaiton and Bearing Resistance for granular River Terrace Deposits __ 28 Table 5.6: Sulphate and pH Values for Balm Road Bridge ___________________________________________ 28 Table 5.7: Railway Sidings Contamination Testing _________________________________________________ 29 Table 5.8: Balm Road Bridge Waste Acceptance Criteria Summary ____________________________________ 30 Table 5.9: Balm Road Bridge - Characteristic Gas Situation __________________________________________ 31 Table 6.1: Route Description __________________________________________________________________ 32 Table 6.2: Anticipated ground conditions between Balm Road Bridge and Winrose Grove __________________ 34 Table 7.1: Groundwater Strikes Stourton Park & Ride ______________________________________________ 38 Table 7.2: Groundwater Monitoring Data - Stourton Park & Ride ______________________________________ 39 Table 7.3: Stourton Park & Ride - Characteristic Gas Situation _______________________________________ 43 Table 8.1: Risk Level Matrix __________________________________________________________________ 45 Table 8.2: Hazard Likelihood Index _____________________________________________________________ 45 Table 8.3: Hazard Impact Index _______________________________________________________________ 46
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT/040 September 2013 http://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
Table 8.4: Preliminary Geotechnical and Contamination Risk Register _________________________________ 47 Table A.1: Soil Testing Suite __________________________________________________________________ 54 Table A.2: Leachate Extract from Soil testing suite _________________________________________________ 54 Table A.3: Groundwater Testing Suite ___________________________________________________________ 55 Table A.4: WAC Testing Suite _________________________________________________________________ 55 Table A.5: Human Health Risk Assessment Soil Guideline Values _____________________________________ 56 Table A.6: Leachate and Groundwater testing Assessment Guideline Values ____________________________ 58 Table A.7: Landfill Waste Acceptance Criteria for Granular Wastes ____________________________________ 59 Table A.8: Characteristic Gas situation by site characteristic gas flow rate _______________________________ 63
Charts
Chart 3.1: Compressive Strength vs. Depth for Mudstone from borehole DS51 ___________________________ 13 Chart 3.2: Compressive Strength vs. Depth for Sandstone and Siltstone from borehole DS53A ______________ 14 Chart 5-1: Compressive Strength vs. Depth for Mudstone and Siltstone ________________________________ 26
i
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
1
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
1.1 General
Leeds City Council (LCC) and the West Yorkshire Transport Executive (Metro) are jointly promoting a
trolleybus network for Leeds and this will be known as New Generation Transport (NGT). It comprises a
line from Holt Park in the north, through the city centre to Stourton in the south. The promoters
commissioned Mott MacDonald Ltd (MM) to produce a Geotechnical Design Report (GDR) for the southern
section of this line from the city centre to Stourton.
Mott MacDonald Limited (MM) prepared a desk study for the South Line (236834/RPT14B)[1]
issued in July
2009 and Belle Isle (312694/RPT048)28
issued May 2013. These desk studies highlighted the key
geotechnical and contamination risks based on historical ground investigation information and publicly
available information and provided broad recommendations for preliminary ground investigations for the
scheme.
Following on from completion of the Desk Study MM were asked to prepare Technical Note TN28 - Ground
Investigation Scoping Document[2]
detailing the ground investigation proposals for each section of the
moderate to high risk areas identified in the Desk Study. The purpose of the ground investigation was to
provide preliminary ground condition information to facilitate a preliminary assessment for the purposes of
the Transport and Works Act Application. The preliminary Ground Investigation targeted major hazards
identified as part of the desk study works or locations of proposed major structures rather than a line wide
ground investigation. It is highly likely that a detailed ground investigation will be required at detailed design
stage.
The preliminary ground investigation was procured by LCC under their framework agreement with Norwest
Holst Soil Engineering Limited (NHSE) using the MM Geotechnical Framework Agreement Specification.
MM acted as the Engineer’s Representative under the ground investigation contract. It was carried out
between December 2009 and February 2010 and reported in the Norwest Holst Factual Report F15694
March 2010[10]
.
MM was commissioned by Leeds City Council (LCC), to produce Geotechnical Investigation Report (GIR)
for the South Line under the terms of Job Initiation Pro-forma Number JIP146. This report was issued in
May 2010 as Report No. 236834/RPT52A[3]
and revised following Client comments and reissued in June
2013 as report 312694/RPT039A[4]
.
Also under the terms of JIP146 MM was commissioned to prepare this Geotechnical Design Report. In
order comply with Eurocode 7 the report shall include:
a description of the site and surroundings;
a description of the ground conditions;
a description of the proposed construction, including actions;
design values of soil and rock properties, including justification;
statement on the codes and standards applied;
statements on the suitability of the site with respect to the proposed construction and the level of
acceptable risks;
geotechnical design calculations and drawings;
foundation design recommendation; and
a note of items to be checked or requiring maintenance or monitoring.
1. Introduction
2
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
The GDR shall include a plan of supervision and monitoring, as appropriate. Items, which require checking
during construction or, which require maintenance after construction shall be clearly identified. When the
required checks have been carried out during construction, they shall be recorded in an addendum to the
Report.
1.2 Sources of Information
During the scoping of the ground investigation, targeted design elements were selected at Design Freeze
Two (DF2). Since then, a series of minor design developments have been made to the scheme and it is
anticipated that further changes will be made in the future. This report considers the preliminary design of
the scheme at Design Freeze 7 stage unless stated otherwise.
In addition the following high level feasibility structural reports have been produced for the major structures
which have been used to inform this report:
236834/ RPT32A6 - Balm Road Bridge Feasibility Report
The preliminary cut and fill volume calculations have been prepared based on DF7 drawings. The
calculations are based on the following assumptions:
any increase or reduction in footway less than 1m has not been considered;
retaining wall foundations have not been considered;
new highway construction without capping comprises 200mm sub-base and 250mm black top; and
new highway construction with capping comprises 600mm capping, 200mm sub-base and 350mm
black top.
Volume calculations at some locations have not been undertaken due to design developments being put on
hold. Later references of Earthworks Specifications have been made which have not been carried out at
this preliminary stage. It is recommended that an Earthworks Specification be carried out as the final
design is completed.
The Geotechnical Design Report for the South Line should be read in conjunction with the following
reports:
Mott MacDonald, South Line Ground Investigation Report, Report No. 312694 RPT039, June 2013.[4]
Norwest Holst - Report on a ground investigation at Stourton Park and Ride, Supertram, Report No.
F12433, 2002[8]
,
Norwest Holst Soil Engineering, Report on a Ground Investigation for Hunslet Sidings, Report No.
F12800, November 2003[9]
,
Norwest Holst Soil Engineering, Report on a Ground Investigation for Leeds New Generation
Transport, Report No. F15694, March 2010[10]
;
1.3 Report Structure
For clarity, the assessment is presented in this report using the following structure:
Section 2 presents the general description of the site and the proposed construction;
Section 3 presents descriptions and locations of general offline highways works;
Section 4 presents descriptions and locations of general online highways works;
Section 5 presents descriptions and the location of Balm Road Bridge and includes characteristic
parameters and foundation recommendations;
Section 6 presents descriptions and the location for the Belle Isle Route and includes characteristic
parameters and foundation recommendations;
Section 7 presents descriptions and the location of Stourton Park and Ride at this Design Freeze
Stage;
Section 8 summarises the geotechnical and contaminated land risks associated with the site;
Section 9 summarises recommendations for further work; and
Section 10 summarises references used.
3
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
2.1 Site Location & Description
The South Line runs for approximately 5km between the north bank of the River Aire and a proposed Park
and Ride facility at Stourton, adjacent to junction 7 of the M621. Outbound it passes through major
redevelopment sites on the southern fringe of the city centre and Hunslet district centre, serving mainly
commercial, industrial and residential areas. It will continue along Balm Road, passing beneath the M621 at
junction 6, along Belle Isle Road, through Belle Isle Circus, along Winrose Grove, before terminating at a
large (expected to be between 1500 and 2300 spaces with phased delivery) Park and Ride site.
The route is summarised in Figure 2.1 below with a route description, associated scheme drawings and
current scheme proposals presented in Table 2.1.
Figure 2.1: Route Overview
2. General Description of the Site and Proposed Construction
4
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
Table 2.1: Description of the South Route
Drawing Reference Route Description Engineering Proposals
312694/TD/030
312694/TD/031
312694/TD/032
312694/TD/033
Start of the section from Briggate crossing Swinegate, along Bridge End to Hunslet Road, off-street section parallel to Waterloo Street and Bowman Lane. Off-street section parallel to Black Bull Street, traversing the corner of Chadwick Street and continuing along the remainder of Chadwick Street, traversing Carlisle Road and Sayner Lane. Section ends perpendicularly to South Accommodation Road
Widening of carriageway. Strengthening works or replacement of existing Leeds Bridge.
Land take required adjacent to Waterloo Road and Bowman Lane, Chadwick Street.
NGT Stops
NGT Substation and Compounds
312694/TD/034 The route goes off-street parallel to Hunslet Road and crosses Hunslet Road at the junction of Forster Street.
Off-street to the north of Hunslet Road.
312694/TD/035
312694/TD/036
312694/TD/037
The route section goes off-street parallel to Hunslet Road traversing Joseph Street, continuing along Whitfield Way, traversing Whitfield Avenue and continuing along Whitfield Square. The section continues along Church Street and Balm Road.
Removal of existing bund. Off-street section adjacent to Hunslet Road.
Earthworks with possibility of retaining structures at Balm Road.
NGT Stops
NGT Substation and Compounds
.
312694/TD/038
312694/TD/039
312694/TD/040
312694/TD/041
312694/TD/042
The route then runs along existing highway along Balm Road, beneath the M621 along Belle Isle Road before crossing Belle Isle Circus and turning east along Winrose Grove.
Runs along highways
Minor land take for bus laybys
Land take at Belle Isle Circus
NGT Stops
NGT Substation and Compounds
312694/TD/043B The route terminates at Stourton Park and Ride.
Retaining structures and earthworks.
Car park facility. Tram Depot.
2.2 Site History & Land Use
A brief summary of the site history and land use along the route is presented below, for a more detailed
description please refer to the South Line Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Desk Study Report No.
236834/RPT14B[1]
.
It is apparent that the south line has largely been a highway since at least the mid to late 19th century. The
South Line generally follows existing roads, except for a section alongside the railway, and from a review of
historical maps, it is apparent that the South Line has largely been a highway since at least the mid to late
19th
century. A number of different industries have lined the route in the past, including printing works,
timber yards, railway lines, iron works and foundries have been built and later removed and replaced by
warehouses.
2.3 Geology
A brief summary of the main geological units encountered along the route is presented below, for a more
detailed description please refer to Section 2.3 of the South Line Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Desk Study
Report No. 236834/RPT14B[1]
.
The ground conditions underlying the South Line comprise alluvium which underlies much of the northern
half of the route as a whole and River Terrace Deposits which underlie much of the southern half of the
route. Beneath these drift deposits, the solid geology comprises sandstones, siltstones and mudstones of
the Lower Coal Measures. To the far south of the route the Thornhill Rock of the Middle Coal Measures
outcrops at the surface as a result of faulting from the Thwaite Farm Fault and the Middleton Grange Fault.
5
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
Belle Isle Circus is likely to be underlain by Made Ground and Emley Rock. Belle Isle Circus via Winrose
Grove to Stourton Park is underlain by varying levels and composition of Made Ground, and Lower Coal
Measures.
2.4 Hydrogeology
From 1st April 2010 the Environment Agency produced new aquifer designation maps which have replaced
the old system of classifying aquifers as Major, Minor and Non-Aquifer. This new system is in line with the
EA Groundwater Protection Policy (GP3)[11]
and the Water Framework Directive (WFD)[12]
and is based on
British Geological Survey mapping.
The superficial deposits and bedrock are regarded as Secondary A, which is a permeable layer capable of
supporting water supplies at a local rather than strategic scale, and in some cases forming an important
source of base flow to rivers.
2.5 Hydrology
A brief summary of the hydrology along the route is presented below, for a more detailed description please
refer to Section 2.6 of the South Line Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Desk Study Report No.
236834/RPT14B[1]
.
The nearest water course is the River Aire and the Aire and Calder Navigation canal. The water quality of
the River Aire is classified as ‘C’, or fairly good quality and the Aire and Calder Navigation is classified as
‘E’, or poor quality. The area is mainly built up and rainfall is collected predominantly as surface run off to
numerous drainage systems.
2.6 Mining
A coal mining report was obtained for the south line in April 2009 during the preparation of the South Line
Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Desk Study Report No. 236834/RPT14B[1]
. The Coal Authority indicated that
a number of coal seams outcrop beneath the route including the Black Bed Coal, Crow Coal, Blocking
Coal, Middleton Eleven Yard Coal seam and the Middleton Main. No signs of subsidence were identified in
the roads or buildings along the route during a site walkover. The Coal Authority identified parts of the route
to be in the zone of influence from up to 6 coal seams and state that any ground movements from these
coal workings should have now ceased.
In September 2010 the Coal Authority published a ‘Coal Mining Development Referral Areas’ plan for
Leeds[13]
. These are areas, based upon Coal Authority records, where the potential land stability and other
safety risks associated with former coal mining activities are likely to be greatest. They include, for
example, areas of known or suspected shallow coal mining, recorded mine entries and areas of former
surface mining.
The plan indicates the following sections of the South Line to fall within the ‘Coal Mining Development
Referral Areas’
Section of route between City Hub running across Leeds Bridge, along Bowman Lane and northern half
of Chadwick Street is classified as an area of probable shallow coal workings.
300m section of route between the Goodman Street /A61 junction to Joseph Street is classified as an
area of probable shallow coal workings
300m section of route along railway sidings from Balm Road bridge to half way across the recreation
ground to the south east is classified as an area of probable shallow coal workings
Balm Road Bridge to the M621.
6
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
Belle Isle Circus
Two mine entries with potential zone of influence are also recorded close to East Grange Drive
Stourton Park and Ride site – majority is classified as Surface Mining (Past and Current) and the area
close to the M621 outside the boundary of the opencast pit is classified as Probable Shallow Coal Mine
Workings. A mine entry with potential Zone of Influence is also noted in the north of this site.
For all new development proposals within Coal Mining Development Referral Areas that require planning
permission, the Coal Authority will expect a Coal Mining Risk Assessment to be prepared and submitted
with the planning application to the Local Planning Authority. This will need to be prepared at detailed
design stage once the final design of the site is confirmed.
2.7 Seismicity of the Area
The published geological maps indicate that there are a number of faults crossing the route, however as
most earthquakes are minor within the UK as a whole it is unlikely that these earthquakes will affect the
scheme.
2.8 Contaminated Land & Pollution Incidents
A brief summary of the contaminated land and pollution incidents encountered along the route together with
preliminary contamination risk assessment are presented below, for a more detailed description please
refer to the South Line Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Desk Study Report No. 236834/RPT14B[1]
Section 3
and 6, respectively.
Three pollution incidents have been recorded as Category 1 (Major Incidents) along the route; remaining
125 pollution incidents are recorded as either Category 2 (Significant Incidents) or Category 3 (Minor
Incidents).
A qualitative contamination risk assessment has been completed and the route has been assigned a LOW
Risk rating for the end user, primarily based upon the current development proposals for a hard standing
road surface.
Contamination related risks include the increased risk of exposure to contamination for construction
workers which has been classified as MODERATE Risk. Based on the historic land use it is probable that
some degree of contamination requiring either on site remediation or removal and disposal off site may be
required. This cannot currently be quantified but is a cost risk to be considered within the NGT project.
2.9 Other Relevant Information
A geotechnical risk assessment was also undertaken by MM which identified the requirements for further
investigation in order to fully understand the risks. The risks outlined below have been highlighted in the
geotechnical risk register as being moderate to high risk:
Much of the ground investigation information provided to MM by LCC is 5 years old or greater and is
adjacent to the route, not beneath it.
Unforeseen ground conditions including buried foundations / culverts beneath the proposed route due
historical land use which may delay construction in areas where neither historic or recent ground
investigation data is available.
Existing services beneath off-street sections e.g. gas, electricity, telecommunications.
Historic open cast mining activity at the site of Stourton Park and Ride (S4 Section), reported as the
former East View open cast coal site.
7
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
Variable made ground consisting of a variety of materials, some of which are unlikely to support an
increase in net loads, have been identified from previous site investigations along the proposed route
alignment.
Variable depth of superficial deposits comprising Alluvium and River Terrace Deposits may result in
differential settlements of the road formation.
Limited contamination testing and gas monitoring has been carried out in historical ground
investigations.
Generation of waste materials from the currently proposed re-surfacing works and excavation of off-
street sections.
The potential for the presence of contaminated material to be encountered which may require off-site
disposal or on site treatment.
8
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
3.1 Description
Offline highways works have been classified as those which are not on existing highway. Offline sections
include extensive widening of the existing carriageway requiring the construction of a standard road
formation and where a section departs from the existing alignment. The following sections identified from
DF7 Drawings:
Waterloo Street to Bowman Lane;
Chadwick Street;
Carlisle Road to South Accommodation Road;
Hunslet Road;
3.2 Source Documents
The following documents should be referred to in conjunction with this section:
Mott MacDonald, Leeds New Generation Transport, South Line Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Desk
Study, Report No. 236834/RPT13B, July 2009;[1]
Mott MacDonald, Proposed Ground Investigation Scope, Technical Note No. 236834/TN28B, October
2009;[2]
Mott MacDonald, Leeds New Generation Transport, Ground Investigation Report - South Line, Report
No. 312694/RPT039,February 2013;[4]
Norwest Holst Soil Engineering, Report on a Ground Investigation for Leeds New Generation
Transport, Report No. F15694, March 2010;[10]
3.3 Ground Conditions
The recent preliminary and historical ground investigations generally encountered the following sequence
of Made Ground overlying Alluvium, River Terrace Deposits and Lower Coal Measures. Boreholes used to
produce general ground models and reference drawings are summarised in Table 3.1 below. The findings
of the recent preliminary investigation are presented in Norwest Holst Soil Engineering Factual Report No.
F15694 dated March 2010[10]
and discussed in Mott MacDonald Ground Investigation Report (GIR) Report
No. 312694/RPT039B[4]
. Geological cross section drawings are also presented in the GIR. General ground
profiles are summarised in Tables 3.2 to 3.5 below.
3. General Offline Highway Works
9
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
Table 3.1: Reference Drawings and Boreholes for General Offline Sections
Offline Section Reference Boreholes Geological Cross Section Drawings 6
Ground Condition Table
Waterloo Street to Bowman Lane; WSS38, WSS39, WSS40, LCC23, LCC67
236834-S-GEO-016 3.2
Chadwick Street; WSS41, TPS42, TPS43, TPS44, LCCFM03, LCC81_BH11
236834-S-GEO-017 3.3
Carlisle Road to South Accommodation Road;
WSS45, WSS46, WSS47, WSS48, WSS49, LCC79, LCC80
236834-S-GEO-018 3.4
Hunslet Road; WSS40, DS51, DS53A, WSS54
236834-S-GEO-019 3.5
Table 3.2: General Ground Conditions for Waterloo Street to Bowman Lane
Stratum Typical Description Depth to Top
(m bgl)
Depth to Base
(m bgl)
Top of Stratum
(m AOD)
Base of Stratum
(m AOD)
Made Ground TARMACADAM.
Dark brown fine to coarse sand of ash and subangular to subrounded fine to coarse gravel sized fragments of brick, sandstone, limestone and slag.
0.0 2.5 GL 23.5
Alluvium Yellow fine to medium SAND.
Soft to firm light brown slightly gravelly CLAY. Sand is fine to medium gravel is subangular to subrounded fine to medium of sandstone and coal.
Greyish brown fine to coarse SAND and subangular to subrounded fine to coarse gravel of sandstone.
2.5 5.5 23.5 20.5
Lower Coal Measures
Weak to moderately strong brownish grey fine grained thickly laminated slightly weathered silty fine SANDSTONE.
Weak to moderately weak light grey moderately weathered thinly laminated SILTSTONE.
5.5 Not Proven
20.5 Not Proven
Groundwater was struck at 4.5m bgl in Alluvium and rose to 4.0m bgl in WSS39, and struck at 3.8m bgl in Alluvium and rose to 3.75m bgl in WSS40.
10
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
Table 3.3: General Ground Conditions for Chadwick Street
Stratum Typical Description Depth to Top
(m bgl)
Depth to Base
(m bgl)
Top of Stratum
(m AOD)
Base of Stratum
(m AOD)
Made Ground Concrete.
Brown sandy grey angular to subangular fine to coarse gravel of brick, clinker, concrete, ash and rare iron with low cobble content.
0.0 2.0 GL 24.0
Alluvium Soft dark grey brown mottled sandy organic SILT.
Greyish brown stained orange slightly clayey fine to medium SAND.
2.0 3.0 24.0 23.0
River Terrace Deposits
Brown slightly silty, very sandy subangular to rounded fine to coarse GRAVEL of mixed lithologies.
3.0 5.0 23.0 21.0
Lower Coal Measures
Weak to moderately strong thinly laminated grey MUDSTONE.
5.0 Not Proven
21.0 Not Proven
Groundwater was encountered during historical ground investigations (LCC81) at 1.95m bgl and 5.2m bgl, rising to 1.7m bgl and 4.25m bgl respectively.
Table 3.4: General Ground Conditions for Carlisle Road to South Accommodation Road
Stratum Typical Description Depth to Top
(m bgl)
Depth to Base
(m bgl)
Top of Stratum
(m AOD)
Base of Stratum
(m AOD)
Made Ground Concrete.
Black gravelly fine to coarse sand of ash with low cobble content. Gravel sized fragments are angular to subangular of clinker and brick.
0.0 1.5 GL 24.5
Alluvium Soft to firm brown slightly gravelly sandy silt CLAY. Sand is fine to medium. Gravel is subangular to subrounded fine to coarse of sandstone.
1.5 3.0 24.5 23.0
River Terrace Deposits
Greyish brown and orange very sandy fine to coarse subangular to subrounded GRAVEL of sandstone. Sand is coarse.
3.0 9.0 23.0 17.0
Weathered Lower Coal Measures
Very stiff silty clay with MUDSTONE lithorelics. 9.0 Not Proven
17.0 Not Proven
Groundwater was struck at 1.2m bgl in Made Ground and rose to 1.15m bgl in WSS45. Groundwater was struck during historical ground investigations at 5.2m bgl and 7.0m bgl in River Terrace Deposits and rose to 3.8m bgl and 3.7m bgl (LCC80).
11
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
Table 3.5: General Ground Conditions for Hunslet Road
Stratum Typical Description Depth to Top
(m bgl)
Depth to Base
(m bgl)
Top of Stratum
(m AOD)
Base of Stratum
(m AOD)
Made Ground Dark brown sandy gravelly clay with low cobble content. Sand sized fragments are fine to medium. Gravel sized fragments are angular to subangular fine to coarse of sandstone, brick, roof tile, pottery and concrete. Cobble sized fragments are subangular of concrete and roof tile.
0.0 1.5 GL 25.5
River Terrace Deposits
Yellowish brown gravelly fine to medium gravelly SAND. Gravel is subangular to subrounded fine to coarse of sandstone.
1.5 5.5 25.5 21.5
Lower Coal Measures
Extremely weak to weak grey MUDSTONE.
Weak to medium strong thinly to thickly laminated light brownish grey fine to medium SANDSTONE with very closely to closely spaced thin laminations of weak dark grey siltstone.
Weak thinly laminated grey SILTSTONE with closely spaced thick laminations to thin laminations of very weak mudstone.
5.5 Not Proven
21.5 Not Proven
Coal Coal 6.7
9.5
9.0
12.0
-
-
-
-
No groundwater strikes were recorded during the drilling.
3.4 Characteristic Parameters
Preliminary characteristic values have been determined based on laboratory testing from both the recent
and historical ground investigations. Where limited or no test results are available, an assessment has
been made based on the description of the material compared to published data; values are presented in
Table 3.6.
The descriptions for River Terrace Deposit and Alluvium have been compared to unit weights provided in
BS8002:1994, Table 2 [14]
. The table provides unit weights for material in the absence of test data.
Plasticity Indices for Alluvium range between 14% and 25% and were compared to φ’crit values in
BS8002:1994[14]
to give a conservative friction angle. The estimated critical friction angle for River Terrace
Deposits has also been estimated from the description of the material and using BS8002:1994[14]
as
follows:
φcrit (˚) = A + B (Equation 5-1)
Where A = angularity of the particles and B = grading of the sand/gravel
12
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
Table 3.6: Characteristic Parameters for Soils Encountered
Material Unit Weight, γ (kN/m3)
Angle of Friction, φcrit (°)
Undrained Shear Strength, cu (kPa)
Drained Young’s Modulus, E’ (MPa)
Made Ground (Cohesive) 18 1 25 3 25 3 -
Made Ground (Granular) 19 1 28 2 0 -
Alluvium (Cohesive) 17 1 29 1 40 3 8 2
River Terrace Deposits (Granular) 21 1 32 2 0 19 2
Weathered Lower Coal Measures (Clay) 20 1 27 3 150 2/3 30 2
1. BS8002:1994. 2. SPT’N’ Correlation, CIRIA 143. 3. Conservative parameter based on engineering judgement and soil description.
The site wide characteristic soil parameters are suitable for conceptual design and considering options for
the form of particular structures. Once the form and geometry of new structures are confirmed detailed
geotechnical design will consider location specific geotechnical data and the appropriate parameters for
design.
Limited information is available for undrained shear strength of cohesive soils encountered. Values
presented are conservative parameters based on soil descriptions from boreholes.
Point load tests were carried out on the cores recovered from DS51 and DS53A for sandstone, siltstone
and mudstone. The point load Is(50) value has been converted to a compressive strength by using a
correlation value of K = 22 , as follows:
Co (MPa) = Is(50) x K (Equation 3-2)
13
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
Chart 3.1: Compressive Strength vs. Depth for Mudstone from borehole DS51
5
10
15
20
25
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Compressive Strength (MN/m2)
Ele
vation (
m A
OD
)
Note 1: Extremely weak = <1MN/m
2
Source: NWH Rock Testing, F15694
Drift Deposits
Mudstone
Weak
Mediu
m
Str
on
g
Very
Weak
(see N
ote
1)
Str
on
g
Characteristic
Value
Upper and Lower
Bound Values
Value excluded as
deemed
unrepresentative
14
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
Chart 3.2: Compressive Strength vs. Depth for Sandstone and Siltstone from borehole DS53A
5
10
15
20
25
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Compressive Strength (MN/m2)
Ele
vation (
m A
OD
)
Note 1: Extremely weak = <1MN/m
2
Source: NWH Rock Testing, F15694
The compressive strengths presented for Lower Coal Measures are lower bound values determined from
point load tests and rock core descriptions; these represent rock up to 3m below the drift deposits which
may be encountered. Compressive strengths are shown to generally increase with depth for all strata.
Greater compressive strengths can be achieved within the sandstone and siltstone strata at greater depths.
The compressive strength characteristic values given are conservative and based on testing carried out
during the preliminary ground investigation. Characteristic values may be revised following further intrusive
investigations and rock testing if required. Preliminary characteristic values are presented below in Table
3.7 below.
Table 3.7: Characteristic Parameters for Lower Coal Measures
Material Unit Weight, γ (kN/m3) Compressive Strength, Co (MPa)
Young's Modulus, E (MPa)
Sandstone 25 1/2 5 1 600 2
Siltstone 23 1/2 3 1 400 2
Mudstone 22 1/2 1 1/2 150 2
1. Laboratory Results;
2. Conservative parameter based on engineering judgement and sample description;
Drift Deposits
Sandstone
Siltstone
Lower and Upper
Bound Values
Lower and Upper
Bound Values
Weak
Mediu
m
Str
on
g
Very
Weak
(See N
ote
1)
Str
on
g
Characteristic
Values
15
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
3.5 Pavement Design
The proposed offline sections of the South Line are likely to be constructed within subgrade material of
Made Ground, which is highly variable throughout the South Line. In some instances, Made Ground may
be excavated and the formation may then be laid within the underlying Alluvium or River Terrace Deposits.
With reference to the Highways Agency, Interim Advice Note 73/06, (2009)[15]
, the following preliminary
CBR values may be adopted and are presented below in Table 3.8.
Table 3.8: CBR Correlation with Plasticity Index
Material Characteristic Plasticity Index (%) Correlated CBR Value (%)
Ref. IAN73/06 30
Made Ground 14 2.5*
Alluvium 20 2
River Terrace Deposits (Granular) n/a 15
Source: NWH Factual Report, F15694. MM GIR Report No.312694/RPT039
* To take into account material variability and generally cohesive nature of the ground.
It is recommended that the formation be inspected by a suitably experienced engineer to identify any soft,
loose or other unacceptable materials. If unacceptable material is encountered, remedial ground treatment
measures may be required. Such measures could include excavation and replacement of low stiffness /
strength materials with well compacted engineered fill. It may prove beneficial to incorporate a geogrid into
the pavement design to reduce differential movement, and to reduce the quantity of imported base material
required.
Should any coal seams be encountered at formation level, they should be excavated and replaced with
mass concrete, or if agreed with the structural designer, suitable granular fill. Should coal be exposed
elsewhere within the area, it should be sealed with mass concrete to limit the penetration of air and reduce
risk of combustion in accordance with guidance and a licensing agreement with The Coal Authority.
3.6 Concrete Classification
Chemical results have been assessed in order to determine the risk of sulphate attack on any concrete
used within foundations for NGT stops along the offline sections.
Table 3.9: Sulphate and pH Values for Waterloo Street to Bowman Lane
Hole ID Depth (m bgl) SO4 (mg/l) pH
WSS38 0.5 540 11.4
WSS38 1.0 930 11.3
WSS39 1.2 200 9.0
WSS40 1.0 170 9.5
Source: NWH Factual Report, F15694
Table 3.10: Sulphate and pH Values for Chadwick Street
Hole ID Depth (m bgl) SO4 (mg/l) pH
WSS41 0.5 130 9.2
TPS42 0.5 200 10.1
TPS43 1.4 470 9.3
TPS44 1.0 120 9.2
16
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
Source: NWH Factual Report, F15694
Table 3.11: Sulphate and pH Values for Carlisle Road to South Accomodation Road
Hole ID Depth (m bgl) SO4 (mg/l) pH
WSS47 1.0 200 9.5
WSS48 1.0 90 9.0
WSS49 1.0 85 8.7
Source: NWH Factual Report, F15694
The buried concrete design has been evaluated using the BRE Special Digest 1 (2005)[16]
. BRE guidance
recommends using the highest measured sulphate concentration for the Design Sulphate Class. No tests
were carried out along Hunslet Road, therefore a conservative concrete class is proposed at this
preliminary stage. Aggressive Chemical Environment for Concrete (ACEC) classification has been used for
brownfield sites and assumes mobile groundwater.
Based on the forgoing, buried concrete within each offline section should be designed to sulphate classes
in Table 3.12. Consideration should be given as to whether the sulphate class should be increased to DS-2
to allow for winter salting.
Table 3.12: Preliminary Concrete Class for Offline Sections
Section Concrete Class
(BRE SD1)
Waterloo Street to Bowman Lane DS-2, AC-2
Chadwick Street DS-1, AC-1
Carlisle Road to South Accommodation Road DS-1, AC-1
Hunslet Road DS-2, AC-2
3.7 Contamination and Waste Implications
3.7.1 Contamination Testing
Contamination testing has been carried out in areas of proposed offline highway works. The contamination
testing methodology is discussed in Appendix B Section B.1. For the purpose of this scheme the
commercial / industrial land use scenario has been utilised, further discussion of the assessment criteria is
presented in Appendix B.2, Table B.5.
Leachate extract from soil and groundwater results have been compared to the Environmental Quality
Standards (EQS) where available and by UK Drinking water Quality Standards (UK DWS). These guideline
values are summarised in Appendix B2, Table B.6. Table 3.14 presents a summary of the findings of the
contamination testing.
Table 3.13: Offline Sections Contamination Testing Summary
Route Section Exploratory Holes
Soil Leachate Extract from Soil
Groundwater Testing
Former Tetley’s Brewery Car Park
WSS38
WSS39
WSS40
No exceedences of SGVs or GACs for metals or inorganic compounds
Elevated levels of TPH exceeding 1000 mg/kg however. Speciated
All concentrations of contaminants fell below EQS and UK DWS values.
Slightly elevated levels of pH between 9.8 and 11 exceeding the EQS of 9.
No Testing
17
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
Route Section Exploratory Holes
Soil Leachate Extract from Soil
Groundwater Testing
testing did not exceed GACs
Chadwick Street WS41
TPS42
TPS43
TPS44
No exceedences of SGVs or GACs for any contaminant
No Testing No Testing
Carlisle Road to South Accommodation Road
WSS45
WSS46
WSS47
WSS48
WSS49
Elevated levels of TPH and PAH exceeding 1000mg/kg in WSS48 only. Speciated testing indicated elevated levels of Dibenzo (ah) anthracene, Benzo-a- pyrene. Elevated levels of Arsenic exceeding SGVs or GACs.
Concentrations of majority of contaminants fell below EGS and UK DWS values.
Slightly elevated levels of pH between 9.9 exceeding the EQS of 9.
Elevated level of copper at 140 µg/l in WSS47 exceeding EQS
No Testing
Hunslet Road WSS50
DS51
DS53A
WSS54
No testing No Testing Concentrations of majority contaminants fell below EQS and UK DWS values
Elevated level of selenium at 20 µg/l in DS53A exceeding EQS of 10 µg/l
3.7.2 Waste Categorisation
This section provides a preliminary assessment of whether the Made Ground material encountered is
potentially non-hazardous or hazardous waste by using Waste Acceptance Criteria testing or CAT-
WASTESOIL
; both of these methodologies are described in Appendix B Section B2.3. It should be noted
however; that this categorisation is indicative only for costing and planning purposes and final
categorisation of any excavated material is the responsibility of the producer or holder of the waste.
Additionally, liaison with the intended landfill operator will be required to confirm the receipt of the waste.
Table 3.14 presents a summary of WAC testing.
Table 3.14: Offline Sections Waste Acceptance Criteria Summary
Route Section Exploratory Holes
CAT Waste Assessment WAC Testing
Waterloo Street to Bowman Lane
WSS38
WSS39
WSS40
WSS38 – Hazardous Waste (Heavy Fuel Oil)
WSS38 - Hazardous Waste (Total TPH, pH)
WSS39 – Hazardous Waste
(pH)
Chadwick Street WS41
TPS42
TPS43
TPS44
Non-hazardous Waste TPS42 – Total Organic Carbon content too high for an inert landfill
TPS43 – Hazardous Waste (Total PAH,)
TPS44 – Inert Waste
Carlisle Road to South Accommodation Road
WSS45
WSS46
WSS47
WSS48
WSS49
WSS45 & WSS49 – Non-hazardous
WSS48 –Hazardous Waste (Benzo-a- pyrene and heavy fuel oil)
WSS46 – Total Organic Carbon content too high for inert landfill
WSS47 – Hazardous Waste (Total TPH, Total PAH)
WSS49 - Hazardous Waste (Total PAH,)
Hunslet Road WSS50
DS51
DS53A
WSS54
- WSS50 – Hazardous Waste (Total PAH)
WSS54 –Total Organic Carbon content too high for inert landfill
18
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
3.8 Earthworks Assessment
Table 3.15 shows preliminary cut and fill volumes for each of the offline sections and the material to be
excavated based on the ground models provided in Section 3.4. The cut and fill volumes have been based
on the alignment at DF7.
Table 3.15: Preliminary Cut and Fill Volumes for Offline Sections- South Line
Offline Section Drawing Reference Fill Volume m3 (With Capping)
Cut Volume, m3
Likely Material and Description
Waterloo Street to Bowman Lane
312694/TD/031 360 1217 Made Ground: Tarmac; Dark brown fine to coarse sand sized fragments of ash and subangular to subrounded fine to coarse gravel sized fragments of brick, sandstone, limestone and slag.
Chadwick Street 312694/TD/032 1878 4404 Made Ground: Concrete; Brown sandy grey angular to subangular fine to coarse gravel sized fragments of brick, clinker, concrete, ash and rare iron with low cobble content.
Carlisle Road to South Accommodation Road
312694/TD/033 3501 6347 Made Ground: Black gravelly fine to coarse sand sized fragments of ash with low cobble content. Gravel sized fragments are angular to subangular of clinker and brick.
Hunslet Road 312694/TD/034 2010 4019 Made Ground: Dark brown sandy gravelly clay with low cobble content. Sand sized fragments are fine to medium. Gravel sized fragments are angular to subangular fine to coarse of sandstone, brick, roof tile, pottery and concrete. Cobble sized fragments are subangular of concrete and roof tile.
3.8.1 Waterloo Street to Bowman Lane
With regards to the risks to human health and groundwater from the soils beneath this section of the route
the risk is likely to be low based on current development proposals. Although there remains a risk to
construction workers, working practices should be planned to reduce direct contact with Made Ground
materials and they should be provided with appropriate PPE and facilities.
The Made Ground which may be excavated at this location during highway construction is likely to be
unacceptable for placement in landscaping areas. The material is likely to classify as hazardous waste due
to its hydrocarbon content and would require disposal at a suitably licensed facility.
3.8.2 Chadwick Street
With regards to the risks to human health and groundwater from the soils beneath this section of the route
the risk is likely to be low based on current development proposals and no exceedences detected of the
commercial / industrial SGVs/GACs. Although there remains a risk to construction workers, working
practices should be planned to reduce direct contact with Made Ground materials and they should be
provided with appropriate PPE and facilities.
Should the Made Ground at this location be excavated during highway construction it is likely to be
unacceptable for placement in landscaping areas but may be suitable for placement beneath the highway
so long as it complies with the acceptance criteria for both contamination and geotechnical properties
which will be outlined in the Earthworks Specification.
19
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
Should a surplus of material be anticipated, the material is likely to classify as non - hazardous waste due
to its contaminant characteristics and would require disposal at a suitably licensed facility.
3.8.3 Carlisle Road to South Accommodation Road
Elevated levels of total TPH, Total PAH (including Dibenzo (ah) anthracene, Benzo-a-pyrene) and arsenic
exceeded the commercial / industrial guideline values, however based on the current development
proposals there is likely to be a low risk to human health as there will be no plausible pathway between site
users and soils beneath this section of the route. Although there remains a risk to construction workers,
working practices should be planned to reduce direct contact with Made Ground materials and they should
be provided with appropriate PPE and facilities.
Should the Made Ground at this location be excavated during highway construction it is likely to be
unacceptable for placement in landscaping areas but may be suitable for placement beneath the highway
so long as it complies with the acceptance criteria for both contamination and geotechnical properties
which will be outlined in the Earthworks Specification.
Should a surplus of material be anticipated the material is likely to classify as hazardous waste due to its
contaminant characteristics and would require disposal at a suitably licensed facility.
3.8.4 Hunslet Road
Should the Made Ground at this location be excavated during highway construction it is likely to be
unacceptable for placement in landscaping areas but may be suitable for placement beneath the highway
so long as it complies with the acceptance criteria for both contamination and geotechnical properties
which will be outlined in the Earthworks Specification.
Elevated levels of PAH were encountered, however based on the current development proposals there is
likely to be a low risk to human health as there will be no plausible pathway between site users and soils
beneath this section of the route. Although there remains a risk to construction workers, working practices
should be planned to reduce direct contact with Made Ground materials and they should be provided with
appropriate PPE and facilities.
Should a surplus of material be anticipated the material is likely classified as hazardous waste due to its
Total PAH content and would require disposal at a suitably licensed facility.
3.9 Gas Risk Assessment
A review of the current proposals indicates there are no enclosed spaces along general offline sections nor
are there deep excavations. However, gas monitoring has been carried out in accordance with the
guidance presented in Appendix B.3 and the results are presented in Table 3.16.
20
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
Table 3.16: Offline Sections - Characteristic Gas Situation
Route Section Exploratory Holes
Gas Concentration
(% v/v)
Gas Flow Rate
(l/hr)
Site hazardous gas flow (l/hr)
Characteristic Situation
(CIRIA C665 [17], BS8485 [18])
Former Tetley’s Brewery Car Park
WSS38
Carbon Dioxide 0.1
Methane <0.1
0.1 0.0001
0.0001
1 – Very Low Risk
WSS40 Carbon Dioxide 0.1
Methane <0.1
0.1 0.0001
0.0001
1 – Very Low Risk
Chadwick Street WS41 Carbon Dioxide 0.1
Methane <0.1
0.1 0.0001
0.0001
1 – Very Low Risk
Carlisle Road to South Accommodation Road
WSS45
Carbon Dioxide 0.2
Methane <0.1
0.1 0.0002
0.0001
1 – Very Low Risk
WSS47 Carbon Dioxide 0.2
Methane <0.1
0.1 0.0002
0.0001
1 – Very Low Risk
Hunslet Road WSS50
Carbon Dioxide 0.2
Methane <0.1
0.1 0.0002
0.0001
1 – Very Low Risk
DS53A
Carbon Dioxide 0.2
Methane <0.1
-0.1 -0.0002
0.0001
1 – Very Low Risk
Based on monitoring carried out to date the risk to offline sections from gas is Very Low, and no special
precautions will be required during construction. Further gas monitoring will be carried out across the next 9
months following which the above calculation and risk rating will need reviewing.
In addition a PID meter was used during the gas monitoring to determine whether any volatile compounds
are present within the ground, at each location the meter read 0.0ppm.
21
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
4.1 Description
Online highways works are defined as those which follow the line of the existing highway and involve
limited land take. It has been assumed that online works require limited geotechnical input as the works are
likely to involve the resurfacing of existing road and possible junction improvements and limited land take.
The online section from Whitfield Avenue to Church Street includes a section on existing paved area and is
counted as an online section requiring capping. These areas are outlined in MM Report 236834/RPT21[19]
.
The South Line follows existing highway for a small portion of its length, with some areas of land take
where carriageway widening is required.
The online sections of the South Line have been identified by street name and are as follows;
Lower Briggate, Drawing No 236834-OPT5-001;
Bridge End, Drawing No 236834-OPT5-001;
Chadwick Street, Drawing No. 236834-S-OPT1-003;
Church Street, Drawing No. 236834-S-BASE-007; and
Balm Road, Drawing No. 236834-S-BASE-008.
4.2 Source Documents
The following documents should be referred to in conjunction with this section;
Mott MacDonald, Leeds New Generation Transport, South Line Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Desk
Study, Report No. 236834/RPT14B, July 2009. 1
Mott MacDonald, NGT, Design Freeze Seven, South Line Drawings, June 2013, P229
;
4.3 Ground Conditions
Ground conditions are not likely to have a significant impact on these works and design implications are not
discussed in this section of the report. A general summary of the ground conditions for the online sections
of the South Line is presented in the Desk Study Report 1. However, additional ground investigation and
geotechnical design may be required at detailed design stage should design development progress.
4.4 Pavement Design
Limited geotechnical design input is anticipated where the route follows the existing highway, and as such
these sections were not targeted by the preliminary ground investigation. It is considered that the online
sections of the scheme are comparable with Geotechnical Category 1, as defined in BS EN 1997-1:2004[20]
as limited black top resurfacing works are anticipated with minor areas of carriage widening and junction
realignment.
4.5 Contamination and Waste Implications
In agreement with LCC it was considered unnecessary to carry out contamination testing beneath the
existing highway at this preliminary stage of the scheme. Any contamination beneath the existing highway
is unlikely to be disturbed during construction works, and there are limited pathways for users of the NGT
scheme to come into contact with any contaminated soil.
4. General Online Highway Works
22
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
With regards to resurfacing works, the excavated blacktop and aggregate should be suitable for recycling
and re-use either for this scheme or other LCC highways schemes. However, parts of the route are likely to
be underlain by older coal tar based black top and older aggregates could contain ash, clinker and slag
which may not be suitable for re-use. Further assessment would be required on the excavated material to
determine its composition and suitability for re-use.
4.6 Earthworks Assessment
It is likely that Made Ground associated with the existing road construction may be excavated for the
general online works. Ground conditions along this section are to be confirmed during the construction
works.
Table 4.1: Preliminary Cut and Fill Volumes for General Online Highways Works
Offline Section Drawing Reference Fill Volume m3 (With Capping)
Cut Volume, m3
Likely Material and Description
Bridge End to Hunslet Road
236834-S-BASE-001 0 332 Made Ground: Tarmacadam, existing road formation materials.
Whitfield Avenue to Church Street
236834-S-BASE-006, 236834-S-BASE-007
1110 2250 Made Ground: Tarmacadam, existing road formation materials.
Church Road to Balm Road
236834-S-BASE-007 On Hold* Made Ground: Tarmacadam, existing road formation materials.
*The design along this section is currently on hold and as such no cut and fill volumes have been calculated for this section.
23
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
5.1 Description
The proposed South Line runs through the built up area of Hunslet to the south of the City Centre and
crosses the Hallam & Pontefract railway adjacent to the existing Balm Road Bridge. The existing Balm
Road Bridge was built in 1902 comprising five spans across the railway sidings, with existing headroom of
4.3m, which is below current Network Rail standards. The existing bridge was inspected in 2002 and found
that there was severe corrosion of steel elements. Options to refurbish and replace Balm Road Bridge are
discussed in Mott MacDonald Report No. 236834/RPT32[6]
.
The Clients preferred design option is to keep the existing Balm Road Bridge with the possibility of
widening and increasing the height of the bridge deck; however an alternative option is to construct a new
bridge to the east of existing which would accommodate two trolleybus lanes, two evacuation strips and
incorporating the required Network Rail headroom of 5.8m. In this scenario the existing Balm Road Bridge
would continue to carry general traffic. The foundations for a possible offline structure are discussed in a
separate Design Note. The design note does not cover the approach embankments to the proposed bridge
which will be discussed below.
It should be noted that no decision has been made about whether a new bridge will be constructed to the
east of existing; therefore this report considers all options.
5.2 Source Documents
The following documents should be referred to in conjunction with this section:
Mott MacDonald, Leeds New Generation Transport, Ground Investigation Report - South Line, Report
No. 312694/RPT039, February 2013[4];
Norwest Holst Soil Engineering, Report on a Ground Investigation for Hunslet Sidings, Report No.
F12800, November 2003 [9]
;
Norwest Holst Soil Engineering, Report on a Ground Investigation for Leeds New Generation
Transport, Report No. F15694, March 2010 [10]
;
Mott MacDonald, NGT Route Development, Balm Road Bridge High Level Feasibility Report, Report
No. 236834/RPT32, November 2009, Rev A[6]
;
5.3 Assumptions
The following assumptions have been made in the discussion of Balm Road Bridge:
the ground investigation information is representative of conditions beneath the site;
imported cohesive or granular fill has been assumed to form the embankment slopes;
calculations have assumed a preliminary dead load of 7000kN and a preliminary live load of 3500kN;
5.4 Ground Conditions
The ground investigation indicated that the ground consists of Made Ground and River Terrace Deposits
overlying interbedded solid strata of siltstones and mudstones of the Lower Coal Measures. The findings of
this investigation are presented in Norwest Holst Soil Engineering Factual Report No’s F12800[9]
and
F15694[10]
and discussed in Mott MacDonald Ground Investigation Report (GIR)[4]
. Geological cross section
5. Balm Road Bridge
24
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
drawings are also presented in GIR No. 312694/RPT039[4]
. General ground profiles beneath to the north
and south of the new bridge are summarised in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1: Summary of Ground Conditions
Stratum Typical Description Depth to Top
(m bgl)
Depth to Base
(m bgl)
Top of Stratum
(m AOD)
Base of Stratum
(m AOD)
Made Ground Black slightly clayey gravelly fine to coarse sand sized fragments of ash. Gravel sized fragments are angular to subangular fine to coarse of wood, rope, granite, sandstone and occasional clinker.
0.0 ~3.2 ~30.0 ~26.8
River Terrace Deposits
Soft to firm slightly sandy slightly gravelly CLAY. Sand is fine to medium. Gravel is fine to medium of sandstone.
~3.2 ~ 4.4 ~26.8 ~25.6
Medium dense fine to medium SAND and fine to coarse GRAVEL of sandstone.
~ 4.4 9.4 ~25.6 ~21.0
Lower Coal Measures
Siltstone
Mudstone
Weak to medium strong SILTSTONE. Discontinuities are very closely to closely spaced undulating rough locally clay smeared.
0.8m deep assumed zone of core loss at 16.6m AOD to 15.8m AOD (12.6m bgl to 13.4m bgl).
Extremely weak to very weak thickly laminated MUDSTONE. Discontinuities are extremely closely to closely spaced undulating smooth clay filled.
~9.0
Not Proven
~21.0
Not Proven
Possible Mine Workings
No loss of flush was recorded. 16.4 19.0 12.8 10.2
Coal Very weak black vitreous COAL. Recovered as non-intact core (angular tabular fine to coarse gravel sized fragments with low cobble content).
12.8 13.0 16.0 15.8
Groundwater was struck at 2.5m bgl within the Made Ground; no rise in level was recorded in DS59. Groundwater was struck at 10m bgl within siltstone; no rise in water level was recorded in DS64.Groundwater has been monitored between 1.8m bgl and 1.96m bgl in DS64 and between 2.24m bgl and 2.36m bgl in DS59.
A coal seam was encountered between 12.8m bgl and 13.0m bgl and a possible void was recorded
between 16.4m bgl and 19.0m bgl. There is a potential for possible mine workings to be present beneath
the site due to core loss being recorded during the ground investigation. The site is in an area of possible
former coal mining at less than 30m bgl as indicated in BGS Technical Report WA/92/1[21]
and the MM
Desk Study Report[1]
.
Further Ground Investigation is required to confirm the extent of shallow mine workings. Grouting of any
shallow mine workings will be required beneath new embankments and structures.
5.5 Characteristic Parameters
Preliminary characteristic parameters for material present beneath the site were derived from laboratory
test results (NHSE Ltd Report No. F15694[10]
and F12800[9]
). Where limited or no test results are available,
an assessment has been made based on the material description compared to published data as detailed
in the South Line GIR and summarised in Tables 5.2 and Table 5.3.
Limited site specific data was available for Plasticity Indices for the cohesive River Terrace Deposits due to
lack of material recovery during drilling, however, data from boreholes in the vicinity (CRS60, CRS61 and
DS65) were available from which a characteristic effective angle of friction has been derived. Plasticity
Indices ranging between 12% and 28% were compared to φ’crit values in BS8002:1994[14]
to give a
moderately conservative friction angle (Table 5.2).
25
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
No testing data was available to give site specific unit weights of the material; therefore, based on the soil
description, a unit weight of 18kN/m3 has been used to represent typical firm clay for the cohesive River
Terrace Deposits with the corresponding undrained shear strength (cu) of 40kPa.
The description for granular River Terrace Deposit has been compared to unit weights provided in
BS8002:1994, Table 2[4]
. The table provides unit weights for material in the absence of test data. The
estimated critical friction angle has also been estimated from the description of the material and using
BS8002:1994 as follows:
φcrit (˚) = A + B (Equation 5-1)
Where A = angularity of the particles, and B = grading of the sand/gravel
The granular River Terrace Deposits were described as medium dense sand and gravel with SPT’N’ values
ranging between 12 and 28 with one N value of 45 recorded. Correlating SPT’N’ values with friction angles
after Barnes gave friction angles between 31˚ and 36˚.
However, in comparison to the SPT’N’ correlation, the more conservative lower 5th percentile value for the
friction angle of granular River Terrace Deposits has been adopted which is equivalent to the critical friction
angle.
Characteristic values may be revised following further intrusive investigations and soil/rock testing.
Preliminary characteristic values are presented below.
Table 5.2: Characteristic Parameters for River Terrace Deposits
Material Unit Weight, γ (kN/m3)
Angle of Friction, φ’ crit (°)
Undrained Shear Strength, cu (kPa)
Drained Young’s Modulus, E’ (MPa)
River Terrace Deposits (Cohesive) 18 2 27 1/2 40 1 9 3
River Terrace Deposits (Granular) 20 2 31 1/2 - 19 3
1. Laboratory test results 2. BS8002:1994
Point load tests were carried out on the cores recovered from boreholes DS65, DS64 and HSBH07 from
both ground investigations for siltstone and mudstone. The point load Is(50) value has been converted to a
compressive strength by using a correlation value of K=22, as follows:
Co (MPa) = Is(50) x K (Equation 5-2)
Correlations of compressive strength with depth were made for siltstone and mudstone recovered from
boreholes DS65, DS64 and HSBH07.
26
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
Chart 5-1: Compressive Strength vs. Depth for Mudstone and Siltstone
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
0 10 20 30 40 50
Compressive Strength, MN/m2
Ele
vati
on
(m
AO
D)
Note 1: Extremely weak = <1MN/m
2
Source: NWH F15694
The compressive strengths presented in Table 5.3 for Lower Coal Measures are lower bound values
determined from point load tests and rock core descriptions; these represent rock up to 3m below the drift
deposits which may be encountered. Results generally indicate an increase in compressive strengths with
depth for the siltstone.
Compressive strengths for the mudstone are much lower than for siltstone, as the mudstone was recovered
as largely non-intact. The compressive strength characteristic values given are moderately conservative
and based on testing carried out during the preliminary ground investigation. Rock Quality Designation was
generally very poor (RQD <25%), therefore a Mass factor j of 0.2 should also be used in geotechnical
design.
Table 5.3: Characteristic Parameters for Lower Coal Measures
Material Unit Weight, γ (kN/m3) Compressive Strength, Co (MPa)
Young's Modulus, E (MPa)
Siltstone 23 2 3 1/2 400 2
Mudstone 22 2 1 1/2 150 2
1. Laboratory Results
2. Conservative parameter based on engineering judgement and soil description.
River Terrace Deposits
Siltstone
Mudstone
Siltstone
Lower and Upper
Bound Values
River Terrace Deposits (Cohesive)
Made Ground
Lower and Upper
Bound Values
Very
Weak
(see N
ote
1)
Weak
Mediu
m
Str
on
g
27
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
5.6 Approach Embankments
The approach embankments to the replacement bridge will be constructed using assuming either granular
or cohesive fill to achieve a ‘safe’ slope angles in accordance with BS EN1997-1[20]
and the UK National
Annex.
Cohesive fill used for the embankment slopes must have an angle of friction of 27˚ with drained cohesion
(c’) of 0kPa and an undrained cohesion of at least 50kPa. Imported granular fill will have an angle of friction
of at least 36˚.
For the off line bridge option, the stability of the proposed slope, at maximum height, was determined in
accordance with EC7 using partial factors to ensure an adequacy factor greater than unity. The calculation
methodology is presented in Appendix C.
Table 5.4: Preliminary Slope Stability Analysis
Granular Imported Fill Cohesive Imported Fill
Slope Angle Combination 1 Combination 2 Combination 1 Combination 2
1 in 2.5 1.81 1.38 1.27 0.99
1 in 2 1.45 1.11 1.02 0.79
Slope assessments for imported fill in Table 5.4 above indicate that a preliminary slope angle of 1 in 2 is
likely to be acceptable for granular fill and 1 in 2.5 for cohesive imported fill. If steeper slopes are required
due to restrictions on land-take strengthen earthworks with layers of geogrid or low height retaining walls
will be required.
As noted in Section 4.4 the ground conditions beneath the proposed embankments comprise Made Ground
overlying soft to firm cohesive River Terrace Deposits and granular River Terrace Deposits.
The soft to firm cohesive River Terrace Deposits may undergo some long term settlement relative to the
bridge structure, particularly for the option of new bridge to the east where new embankment loading will be
significant. The Made Ground and cohesive River Terrace Deposit properties could be modified by ground
improvement techniques such as vibro stone columns or excavate and replaced with granular fill using
SHW Class 6A fill if placing material under water.
The bearing resistance of the granular River Terrace Deposits should be sufficient for the preliminary
loadings anticipated. It is likely that some settlement may occur whilst constructing the approach
embankments which will be dependent on the method of construction chosen. This settlement is likely to be
less than 25mm if the embankment is placed on the medium dense granular underlying River Terrace
Deposits or these deposits are improved.
5.7 Approach Retaining Walls
For the off-line bridge option, significant lengths of reinforced concrete retaining walls are proposed to
retain embankment material for the north and south approaches to the new bridge adjacent to Balm Road.
The north approach embankment retaining wall will retain soil up to 4.5m in height for a length of
approximately 80m and the south approach embankment retaining wall will retain soil up to 6.9m in height
for a length of approximately 55m.
The reinforced concrete cantilever retaining walls should be founded within medium dense granular River
Terrace Deposits in order to minimise settlement. Alternatively, it may be more economical to found the
28
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
walls on piles installed from existing ground level. An alternative solution for approach retaining walls using
reinforced soil may provide economies for the off-line bridge option.
5.8 Foundations
The span of the proposed new bridge is 62m and it will be designed as a bowstring arch with foundations
independent of the existing Balm Road Bridge.
Made Ground is considered unsuitable as a bearing stratum due to its variability in strength and
composition and likeliness to cause excessive and differential settlement. The cohesive River Terrace
Deposits are assumed not to be of a sufficient strength to provide an adequate bearing capacity for the
bridge abutments. It is recommended, therefore, that the foundations be placed in the medium dense to
dense granular River Terrace Deposits.
A shallow foundation option considered is a 14m by 7m pad foundation, which support the bridge
superstructure over the sidings. Pad foundations are likely to provide sufficient support based on
preliminary loadings of 7000kN dead load and 3500kN live load with preliminary dimensions of 14m length
and 7m wide.
A bearing resistance for medium dense to dense granular River Terrace Deposits has been calculated to
be 1049kPa (Combination 1) and 709kPa (Combination 2), for a 14m by 7m footing on Gravel with ’=310.
It is estimated that the total settlement of a pad footing founded on Terrace Gravel will not exceed 25mm.
Table 5.5: Applied Loads for the Pad Foundaiton and Bearing Resistance for granular River Terrace Deposits
Combination 1 Combination 2
Bearing Resistance (kN/m2)
Applied Load (kN)
Applied Pressure (kN/m2)
Bearing Resistance (kN/m2)
Applied Load (kN)
Applied Pressure (kN/m2)
Abutment 1049 14700 150 709 10500 107
Groundwater was monitored in standpipes between 1.8m and 2.36m bgl. It is possible that groundwater
will be encountered at formation levels and some sump pumping at pad excavations may be required.
Alternatively, it may be more practical and economic to construct piled foundations. An appropriate pile
layout may comprise 8Nr 600mm diameter piles (in two rows) per abutment with an average Safe Working
Load 1312kN. Piled foundations should extend beyond the base of any mine workings with the mine
workings stabilised. The detailed pile design will have to consider horizontal loads and overturning
moments from the retained embankments and it is possible that the maximum bending moment in piles will
result in the need for additional 600mm diameter piles or increase to 750mm diameter.
5.9 Concrete Classification
Chemical results have been assessed on order to determine the risk of sulphate attack on any concrete
used within the retaining walls and foundations. Results are presented in Table 5.6.
Table 5.6: Sulphate and pH Values for Balm Road Bridge
Hole ID Depth (m bgl) SO4 (mg/l) pH
CRS60 1.2 1500 8.5
CRS60 4.0 710 8.3
CRS60 5.8 99 8.7
CRS60 9.7 250 8.7
29
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
Hole ID Depth (m bgl) SO4 (mg/l) pH
CRS61 2.0 650 8.6
CRS61 5.8 46 8.7
WSS63 0.8 63 8.7
WSS63 3.4 380 8.3
WSS63 4.2 160 8.4
WSS63 4.7 180 8.3
Source: NWH Factual Report, F15694
The buried concrete design has been evaluated using the BRE Special Digest 1 (2005)[16]
. As there are ten
test results in the data set, BRE guidance recommends using the mean of the highest 20% of sulphate
results is for the Design Sulphate Class and the mean of the lowest 20% of pH results.
Aggressive Chemical Environment for Concrete (ACEC) classification has been used for brownfield sites
and assumes mobile groundwater. Based on the forgoing, buried concrete within the site should be
designed to sulphate class DS-2, AC-2.
5.10 Contamination and Waste Implications
5.10.1 Contamination Testing
Contamination testing has been carried out in areas of proposed offline highway works. The contamination
testing methodology is discussed in Appendix B Section B.1. For the purpose of this scheme the
commercial / industrial land use scenario has been utilised. Further discussion of the assessment criteria is
presented in Appendix B.2, Table B.5. It should be noted that the assessment in the vicinity of Balm Road
Bridge has also utilised the contamination testing carried out during the ground investigation carried out
along Hunslet Sidings in 2003.
Leachate extracts from soil and groundwater results have been compared to the Environmental Quality
Standards where available or to UK Drinking water Quality Standards. These guideline values are
summarised in Appendix B2, Table B.6. Table 5.7 presents a summary of the findings of the contamination
testing.
Table 5.7: Railway Sidings Contamination Testing
Route Section Exploratory Holes
Soil Leachate Extract from Soil Groundwater Testing
Balm Road Bridge to Wakefield Road Bridge
CRS60
WSS55A
WSS63
DS59
DS64
DS66
HSBH3
HSBH6
HSBH7
HSBH8
HSBH10
HSBH12
HSTP1
HSTP3
HSTP5
No exceedences of SGVs or GACs for metals or inorganic compounds
Elevated levels of Total TPH exceeding 1000 mg/kg in CRS60 and WSS55A at 1300 mg/kg and 21,000 mg/kg respectively. Speciated testing did not exceed GACs.
Elevated levels of Total PAH at 3600 mg/kg in WSS55A, speciated testing indicates elevated Benzo-a-pyrene.
All concentrations of contaminants fell below EQS and UK DWS values
All concentrations of contaminants fell below EQS and UK DWS values
30
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
Route Section Exploratory Holes
Soil Leachate Extract from Soil Groundwater Testing
HSTP7
HSTP9
5.10.2 Waste Categorisation
This assessment provides a preliminary assessment of whether the Made Ground material encountered is
potentially non-hazardous or hazardous waste by using Waste Acceptance Criteria testing or CAT-
WASTESOIL
; both of these methodologies are described in Appendix B Section B2.3. It should be noted
however; that this categorisation is indicative only for costing and planning purposes and final
categorisation of any excavated material is the responsibility of the producer or holder of the waste.
Additionally, liaison with the intended landfill operator may be required to confirm the receipt of the waste.
Table 5.8 presents a summary of WAC testing.
Table 5.8: Balm Road Bridge Waste Acceptance Criteria Summary
Route Section Exploratory Holes CAT Waste Assessment WAC Testing
Balm Road Bridge to Wakefield Road Bridge
CRS60
WSS55A
WSS63
DS59
DS64
DS66
HSBH3
HSBH6
HSBH7
HSBH8
HSBH10
HSBH12
HSTP1
HSTP3
HSTP5
HSTP7
HSTP9
CRS60 – Hazardous Waste (heavy fuel oil)
WSS55A - Hazardous Waste (Benzo-a-pyrene and heavy fuel oil)
WSS 63 - Hazardous Waste (heavy fuel oil)
Hunslet Sidings exploratory holes - Non Hazardous Waste
WSS56 - Hazardous Waste (Total TPH, Total PAH, TOC, Loss on Ignition)
5.11 Earthworks Assessment
Preliminary cut and fill volumes have not been undertaken for this section of the route as the design
development is currently on hold. It is assumed that a large amount of fill will be imported to site or if
suitable re-used from another area of the scheme to form the north and south approach embankments for
Balm Road Bridge. The volume of cut material is not known at present, but is likely to be Made Ground as
described in Table 5.1.
During site works, material from excavations should be assessed for geotechnical and contamination
acceptability for re-use which will be outlined in an Earthworks Specification for the works. If the material is
deemed unacceptable it will require disposal at an appropriate licensed waste facility.
Testing carried out along Balm Road adjacent to the carriageway indicated elevated levels of hydrocarbons
above commercial / industrial SGV and GAC values, which is possibly residual contamination from the site
of the former car dealership which has been remediated within their site boundary and re-developed as
Gala Bingo.
Testing carried out in exploratory holes at Hunslet Sidings track level indicates no exceedences of the
commercial / industrial SGVs or GACs.
In order to prevent harm from exposure to contaminants appropriate working practices should be planned
to reduce direct contact with Made Ground materials and appropriate PPE and facilities should be
specified.
31
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
The Made Ground in the vicinity of the approach embankments for the new NGT dedicated bridge adjacent
to Balm Road Bridge is likely to require excavation as it will be unacceptable to support the embankment.
The material has been classified as hazardous waste due to its TPH, PAH (including Benzo(a)-pyrene) and
will require offsite disposal.
The near surface natural material tested during the 2003 investigation at track level adjacent to Hunslet
Sidings would likely be classified as non-hazardous waste and is likely to be suitable for reuse elsewhere
on the scheme provided it meets the acceptability criteria set out in the earthworks specification for the
scheme. For contamination and waste guidance on this section of the scheme please refer to Section 4.
5.12 Gas Risk Assessment
Gas monitoring has been carried out in accordance with the guidance presented in Appendix B.3 the
results are presented in Table 5.9.
Table 5.9: Balm Road Bridge - Characteristic Gas Situation
Exploratory Holes
Gas Concentration
(% v/v)
Gas Flow Rate
(l/hr)
Site hazardous gas flow (l/hr)
Characteristic Situation
(CIRIA C665 [17], BS8485 [18])
WSS55A
Carbon Dioxide 0.4
Methane <0.1
-0.1 0.0004
0.0001
1 – Very Low Risk
DS59 Carbon Dioxide 1.9
Methane <0.1
0.1 0.0019
0.0001
1 – Very Low Risk
DS64 Carbon Dioxide 0.1
Methane <0.1
0.1 0.0001
0.0001
1 – Very Low Risk
DS66 Carbon Dioxide 0.2
Methane <0.1
0.1 0.0002
0.0001
1 – Very Low Risk
Based on monitoring carried out to date the risk at Balm Road Bridge from gas is Very Low, and no special
precautions will be required during construction. Further gas monitoring will be carried out in the coming
months following which the above calculation and risk rating will need reviewing.
In addition a PID meter was used during the gas monitoring to determine whether any volatile compounds
are present within the ground. At each location the meter read 0.0ppm.
32
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
6.1 Description
The original proposal for the South Line route included running the route along the Hunslet railway sidings
between Balm Road Bridge, Pepper Road Bridge and through an underpass at Westbury Place before
entering the proposed Stourton Park and Ride site on its northern boundary. However, a more detailed
investigation highlighted engineering difficulties along this route. An alternative route has therefore been
proposed at Design Freeze 7 which takes the South Line route from Balm Road Bridge southwards along
Belle Isle Road, crossing Belle Isle Circus taking the route eastwards along Winrose Grove and into the
Stourton Park and Ride at its south western corner.
A drawing showing the route overview is presented as Figure 6.1.
Figure 6.1: Proposed Belle Isle Route
Source: Drawing No. 312694/S/SK/D/001
The route description and engineering proposals for the Belle Isle section of the South Line Route are
described in Table 6.1. The drawings listed in the table are presented as Appendix A
Table 6.1: Route Description
Drawing Reference Route Description Engineering Proposals
312694/TD/037
312694/TD/038
The route starts at Balm Road Bridge following Balm Road south with Moor Road NGT Stop located between Telford Gardens and
Existing on street parking relocated into a new extended lay-by.
Moor Road NGT Stops
6. Belle Isle Route
33
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
Drawing Reference Route Description Engineering Proposals
Woodhouse Hill Road. Some widening of the highway at Telford Gardens
NGT substation and compound
312694/TD/039 The Belle Isle Route continues south from the Woodhouse Hill Road junction, under the M621 underpass to Belle Isle Road.
Existing bus stops relocated to new lay-bys via localised widening of the highway.
1.5m Inbound and outbound cycle lanes.
NGT substation and compound (set into embankment requiring retaining wall on M621 side)
312694/TD/040 The route continues south along Belle Isle Road Existing gap in central reserve closed and East Grange Road exit made left-turn only.
Some localised highway widening in the vicinity of West Grange Church
Junction alteration and designated NGT route at the crossroads of West / East Grange Drive and Belle Isle Road
312694/TD/041 The route continues down Belle Isle Road through the Belle Isle Circus roundabout and turns east onto Winrose Grove. The Belle Isle Circus NGT stop is located north of the Belle Isle Circus roundabout.
Existing bus stop relocated to new layby leading to localised widening of highway
Belle Isle Circus NGT Stop
312694/TD/042
312694/TD/043
The route continues east along Winrose Grove from the Belle Isle Circus and ends at the Middleton NGT stop before entering the Stourton Park and Ride site.
Parking for residential buildings to be located off highway on property forecourts.
Middleton Road NGT Stop – located on high level plaza level
Embankments taking the route from existing road level into Stourton Park and Ride
A desk study Report 312694/RPT048A[28]
was prepared in June 2013, however, no ground investigation
has been carried out to date the following sections summarise the findings of this report.
6.2 History
A review of historical maps indicated that the route has been a roadway for a number of years surrounded
by industrial developments including a tannery, brush works, chemical works, coal pits, steel works and the
Leeds historical tramline. The route is currently predominantly surrounded by residential buildings and
industrial units.
6.3 Geology
The ground conditions underlying the northern section of this route comprises variable depths and
compositions of Made Ground, River Terrace Deposits and Pennine Lower Coal Measures. Belle Isle Road
to Belle Isle Circus is underlain Made Ground and Thornhill Rock. Belle Isle Circus is likely to be underlain
by Made Ground and Emley Rock. Belle Isle Circus via Winrose Grove to Stourton Park is underlain by
varying levels and composition of Made Ground, and Lower Coal Measures. The route crosses two fault
lines, the Farm Fault with a south east downthrow and the Middleton Grange fault with a north west
downthrow.
6.4 Coal Mining
A review of The Coal Authority information, along with mining reports supplied by Leeds City Council and
geological mapping, indicates that there is a significant possibility of shallow mine workings in the northern
34
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
half of the route and in the vicinity of Belle Isle Circus. Leeds City Council have also received anecdotal
information indicating there could be buried air raid shelters and mine shafts within the Belle Isle Circus
roundabout.
6.5 Proven Ground Conditions
Table 6.2 has been prepared using published geological information and historical ground investigation
information obtained from LCC and is indicative only. The ground conditions will require confirmation by a
preliminary ground investigation.
Table 6.2: Anticipated ground conditions between Balm Road Bridge and Winrose Grove
Scheme Drawing No.
Hazard Plan Drawing No.
Stratum
Typical Depth to Top (m)
Typical Depth to Base (m)
Typical description
Balm Road to M621
TD/037 to
TD/039 GEO/046
Made Ground 0 2.5 Ash, brick, timber and clay
River Terrace Deposits 2.5 3.5 Firm silty and sandy becoming stiffer with depth
3.5 5.5 Sand and Gravel
Weathered
Mudstone
5.5 unproven weak to very weak, moderately weathered
M621 to Belle Isle Circus
TD/039 to
TD/041
GEO/046 to
/GEO/047
Made Ground 0.0 0.5 Firm stony clay, with presence of Ash
Weathered Thornhill Rock
0.5 2 Firm, brown, stony and sandy.
Thornhill Rock 2 4 Weathered grey/brown
Siltstone 2 25.25 Completely weathered, highly fractured, sandy with bands of mudstone
Shaley Coal R2 only) 22.35 22.45 Shaley coal
Belle Isle Circus
TD/041 GEO/047
Made Ground 0.0 1.0 Unknown – possibility of air raid shelter beneath the route
Emley Rock 1.0 10> Flaggy sandstone likely to be highly weathered in upper parts
Winrose Grove
TD/042 GEO/047
Made Ground 0.0 1.1 Firm silty clay with gravel and coal fragments
Clay 1.1 2.5 Stiff mottled silty stony with sandstone and mudstone fragments.
Sandstone 1.1 2.1 Completely weathered becoming highly weathered with depth.
Mudstone 2.5 5.00 Completely weathered becoming highly weathered with depth, with bands of Coal
6.6 Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Assessment
A preliminary engineering assessment for the proposed works of the Belle Isle route of the South Line is
presented in the following section. Indicative foundations, earthworks and retaining wall requirements have
been identified using drawings supplied to date but it should be noted that the engineering assessment for
35
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
the proposed works has been carried out using only the information obtained in historical ground
investigations and desk study information. The assessment should therefore be reviewed and updated as
the design of the scheme progresses.
6.6.1 Foundations
6.6.1.1 NGT Stops
The NGT Stops are generally light weight structures, however, their foundations will be required to resist
wind forces, allow for localised loading and facilitate services. The following NGT Stops are currently
proposed along the Belle Isle route:
Moor Road NGT Stop - Preliminary information indicates that Moor Road NGT Stop is likely to be
founded within Made Ground comprising brick rubble and loose brown sandy gravelly clay underlain by
weathered MUDSTONE. However, excavation and replacement of soft, compressible or loose material
is likely to be required, with proof rolling of made ground where it is the founding material.
Belle Isle Circus NGT Stop - There is currently no available historical ground investigation information
regarding the ground conditions along the route between Grange Grove junction (NGR 431060,
430363) and the end of Winrose Grove (NGR 4314797, 430011). However, the geological maps and
historical maps indicate that at the near surface, Belle Isle Circus Stop is likely to comprise either made
ground or weathered coal measures strata.
Middleton NGT Stop -The Middleton NGT Stop is expected to be founded within either Made Ground,
firm stony, silty, sandy CLAY or moderately weak SANDSTONE. Simple spread footings are likely to
be able to carry the loadings without excessive settlements. . However, excavation and replacement of
soft, compressible or loose material is likely to be required, with proof rolling of made ground where it is
the founding material.
6.6.1.2 Belle Isle Circus
The proposed route currently cuts through Belle Isle Circus roundabout. While there is currently no
available information regarding the ground conditions along the southern section of the Belle Isle route,
anecdotal evidence provided by Metro via some stakeholder liaison has indicated the possibility of air raid
shelters or mine shafts being present, in addition LCC have provided a plan indicating the approximate
location of an air raid shelter beneath Belle Isle Circus which is presented in Appendix E. However, no
specific reference to mine entries or shallow mine workings has been noted from Coal Authority mining
information.
Therefore, it would be prudent to assume voids could be present beneath this section of the route until
proven otherwise and also the possibility of hidden structures remaining from the historical tramway that
passed through the centre of Belle Isle Circus in the 1950s.
6.6.2 Earthworks
6.6.2.1 Access Embankment into the Stourton Park & Ride Site
The site walk over highlighted a significant level difference between the Middleton Ring Road level and the
adjacent field that is to be developed as the Stourton Park and Ride site. Access will therefore require the
construction of an embankment from the Middleton Ring Road declining into the Stourton Park and Ride
site.
Ground conditions inferred by LH727 and LH768 at Middleton Ring Road level include Made Ground
consisting of firm silty stony clay with coal fragments and ash to a depth of approximately 1m bgl with
36
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
underlying firm to stiff CLAY with sandstone and mudstone fragments to a depth of approximately 2.5m bgl.
The underlying geology consists of completely weathered to weathered, moderately weak to strong
MUDSTONE and SANDSTONE with the possibility of shallow coal recorded above 5m bgl. Ground water
was recorded at depths between 2.4 and 2.9m bgl.
A ground investigation was carried out for Supertram in 200213
and an additional ground investigation was
carried out for NGT in 201012
both by Norwest Holst at the proposed Stourton Park and Ride site. These
investigations indicated the ground conditions to be opencast backfill consisting of sandy gravelly CLAY
and soft to firm, locally stiff sandy CLAY with cobbles. The opencast backfill is likely to be underlain by
weathered Coal Measures consisting of slightly sandy gravelly CLAY, loose clayey gravelly fine SAND and
fine to medium grained SANDSTONE. Lower Coal Measures are expected below the weathered coal
measures described as MUDSTONE, SILTSTONE and SANDSTONE.
However, there is little or no ground investigation information between the former opencast pit or Middleton
Ring Road beneath the footprint of the proposed embankment and a preliminary ground investigation is
recommended to facilitate the design.
It is proposed that site-won material from the former opencast pit could be used to construct the access
embankment. Further ground investigation and geotechnical laboratory testing for earthworks is
recommended in order to assist in the classification of the material.
6.6.2.2 Off Street Parking and Bus Lay-bys
New extended lay-bys for parking and bus stops have been proposed along the Belle Isle route. There will
be requirements to excavate to a depth of 600mm to 700mm below ground level in order to construct the
off-street formation. Likely ground conditions recorded in reports supplied by LCC indicate that at this depth
the likely strata encountered will comprise Made Ground of sandy silty clay with gravel to cobble sized
fragments of brick and coal, with ash and timber.
Groundwater was encountered during previous investigations at variable depths from 2.0mbgl to 9mbgl and
thus significantly below the depth of likely construction. However, perched groundwater may be present
within the Made Ground at shallower depths, which may impact on construction.
Should Made Ground at the base of the excavation not be consistent and / or in a suitably strong and stiff
condition, it is recommended that a site inspection and assessment of the top 700mm to 1000mm of
ground be carried out by a suitably experienced geotechnical engineer to identify any remedial ground
treatment measures that may be required. Such measures could include excavation and replacement of
low stiffness / strength materials or materials with a high timber content, with well-compacted engineered
fill. Where excessive thicknesses of ‘soft’ or stiff made ground is encountered, a geogrid system solution
could be adopted in order to increase the bearing capacity.
Excess Made Ground material from excavations for roadway construction is likely to require off-site
disposal to landfill if it does not achieve pre-defined geotechnical and chemical assessment criteria for
earthworks or landscaping. Material will require Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) testing before disposal
to landfill.
Excavated material to be reused in other earthworks as general fill requires classification in accordance
with the Highways Agency Specification for Highways Works, Series 600.
37
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
7.1 Description
Design Freeze 7 indicates a Park and Ride facility at the former opencast mine at Stourton to the south of
Junction 7 of M621. The information presented below reflects Design Freeze 7 as detailed in Drawing
312694/TD/043B/P2-. Alignment levels at DF7 comprises:
Retaining wall between depot building and depot car parking up to 6m high;
Cut slopes to east and west sides of depot area up to 1m high;
At this time alignment information for DF7 is very limited and levels are approximate.
7.2 Ground Conditions
Due to the variable nature of the opencast pit a single ground model for the whole site is not possible and a
ground model should be prepared for each structural or engineering element. A summary of typical ground
conditions is presented.
7.2.1 Topsoil
Topsoil was recorded in 14No holes from ground level to depths of between 0.25 to 0.7m bgl with an
average of 0.3m.
7.2.2 Opencast Backfill
Opencast Backfill was recorded in all but 12No exploratory holes beneath topsoil or from ground level. The
base of the pit was recorded in 26 No exploratory holes with depths ranging between 1.8m bgl in SPRTP01
in the north of the site to maximum depths proven in the recent open hole drilling 9.55m (RO76), 10.9m
(RO77) and 11.4mbgl (RO78) towards the centre of the site. The opencast backfill was generally
described as firm and stiff sandy very gravelly clay with occasional cobbles. Cobbles and gravel sized
fragments are mudstone. The true extent of the opencast pit has not been determined, however, the north
and north western boundaries and possibly the southern boundary of the pit appears to have been
delineated. It should be noted that the western and eastern boundaries of the pit appear to extend beyond
the Stourton P&R site boundary.
7.2.3 Weathered Coal Measures (Residual Soils)
When encountered at the base of the pit or outside the pit area, the Weathered Coal Measures was
described mainly a slightly sandy gravelly CLAY with gravel of coal and mudstone but sometimes a loose
slightly clayey gravelly fine to medium SAND with gravel sized fragments of mudstone or fine to medium
grained sandstone recovered as slightly clayey coarse GRAVEL, depending on the original bedrock
composition.
7.2.4 Lower Coal Measures Bedrock
Where encountered the bedrock was described as interbedded mudstone and sandstone with very weak
thinly laminated siltstone.
7. Stourton Park and Ride
38
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
7.2.5 Coal Seams
Coal seams were encountered in 6 No. exploratory holes at varying depths and thicknesses mainly towards
peripheral areas of the pit which is to be expected as towards the centre of the site the coal will have been
extracted.
7.3 Mining
A coal mining report was obtained for the south line in April 2009 during the preparation of the South Line
Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Desk Study Report No. 236834/RPT14B1 which confirms that the site is
located within the boundary of an opencast site from which coal has been removed by opencast methods.
In September 2010 the Coal Authority published a ‘Coal Mining Development Referral Areas’ plan13
for
Leeds. These are areas, based upon Coal Authority records, where the potential land stability and other
safety risks associated with former coal mining activities are likely to be greatest. They include, for
example, areas of known or suspected shallow coal mining, recorded mine entries and areas of former
surface mining.
The plan indicates the Stourton Park and Ride site falls within the ‘Coal Mining Development Referral
Areas’. The majority of the site is classified as “Surface Mining (Past and Current)” and the area close to
the M621 junction, outside the boundary of the opencast pit is classified as “Probable Shallow Coal Mine
Workings”. A mine entry with potential Zone of Influence is also noted in the north of this site.
For all new development proposals within Coal Mining Development Referral Areas that require planning
permission, the Coal Authority will expect a Coal Mining Risk Assessment to be prepared and submitted
with the planning application to the Local Planning Authority. This will need to be prepared at detailed
design stage once the final design of the site is confirmed.
7.4 Groundwater Conditions
The holes in which groundwater strikes are recorded during both phases of ground investigation are noted in the tables below:
Table 7.1: Groundwater Strikes Stourton Park & Ride
Hole ID Hole elevation (mAOD)
Stratum Depth of Water Strike (m)
Depth of Water Strike (m AOD)
SPRBH01 29.62 Mudstone 9 20.62
SPRBH01 29.62 Coal 13.5 16.12
SPRBH02 28.46 Weathered Mudstone
3.8 24.66
SPRTP21 57.55 3 54.55
SPRTP26 39.07 3.1 35.97
RO77 34.63 Interface between opencast pit/natural ground
10.9 33.73
RO78 39.26 11.4 27.86
SPRBH04 29.41 Opencast Backfill (Made Ground)
3.4 26.01
SPRBH06 30.50 3.4 27.10
SPRBH07 28.53 2.8 25.73
SPRBH08 49.14 1.9 47.24
SPRBH09 36.61 7.8 28.81
SPRTP04 34.25 2.5 31.75
39
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
Hole ID Hole elevation (mAOD)
Stratum Depth of Water Strike (m)
Depth of Water Strike (m AOD)
SPRTP07 2.5
SPRTP27 38.33 1.5 36.83
Groundwater levels within standpipes were recorded in both phases of ground investigation and presented in the table below
Table 7.2: Groundwater Monitoring Data - Stourton Park & Ride
Hole ID Hole elevation (mAOD)
Response Zone (m bgl)
Stratum Range of Depths of Monitored Water (m)
Depth of Monitored Water (m AOD)
SPRBH02 28.46 1.0 – 5.0 Weathered Mudstone 4.28* 24.18
SPRBH15 58.68 1.0 – 5.0 4.28* 54.40
SPRBH04 29.41 1.0 – 6.0 Opencast Backfill (Made Ground)
1.71* 27.70
SPRBH06 30.50 1.0 – 7.7 2.49* 28.01
SPRBH08 49.14 1.0 – 6.9 NR* -
RO76 34.63 1.0 – 9.5 0.4 -1.37** 34.23 - 33.26
*only 1 round of monitoring reported in Norwest Holst 2002 report
The groundwater strikes and monitoring indicate the groundwater flow is in a general south west to north
east direction, with a perched groundwater table recorded within the opencast backfill lying higher than in
the adjacent natural ground.
Groundwater was recorded at deeper depths at the interface between the pit and backfill material in RO77,
RO78 and coal / mudstone interface in SPRBH01 and BH08.
It is understood that water tends to pond in the north of the site during the winter and intense periods of
rainfall.
7.5 Foundations
7.5.1 Foundations on rock (Depot Building)
Design Freeze 7 drawing 312694/TD/043B/P2 indicates a depot building in the southern part of the site. It
is understood that this shall be a two storey steel frame building constructed from a formation level of
+43.5m. Foundations are likely to be strip or pad footings on weak siltstone and mudstone, with the need
for local shallow excavation to rock and backfill with mass concrete. SPT N values extrapolated to 300mm
penetration show rock to have N in the range 39 to 600. The Unconfined Compressive Strength of the
uppermost bedrock can be estimated from the relationship UCS (kPa) = 0.6154N1.67
proposed by Turner
and Grose (Tunnel Construction & Piling, 1999)25
. Using this relationship the SPT data indicates UCS in
the range 0.28 to 26.8MPa. The only rock strength data at proposed formation level near to the depot
building is an extrapolated SPT N value of 176 which indicates an UCS of 3.5MPa, therefore the EC7 term
‘Very Weak’ (UCS 1 to 5MPa) or BS5930 tem ‘Weak’ (UCS 1.25 to 5MPa) is appropriate.
Geotechnical data on rock jointing is very limited therefore a maximum presumed bearing pressure of
250kN/m2 is appropriate, after BS EN1997-1 Annex G. Additional Ground Investigation would be required
in order to consider a higher allowable bearing pressure.
40
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
7.5.2 Foundations on opencast backfill
7.5.2.1 Geotechnical data
Triaxial testing of the opencast backfill indicated undrained shear strength of 66kPa to 120kPa. In addition,
SPT tests carried out on the opencast backfill material between indicated N values ranged between 10 and
70 which indicated a slight improvement with depth, within 2m of the ground surface however, SPT N
Values generally range between 10 and 20.
At this stage a presumed bearing pressure of 50kPa should be assumed in view of the lower bound
geotechnical test results to date and with consideration of the variable thickness and engineering properties
of the colliery backfill. However it may be possible to carry out simple ground improvement measures such
as excavate and recompact to SHW Class 7A material requirements for a depth below formation equal to
the width of the foundation in order to increase the presumed bearing pressure to 100kPa.
7.5.2.2 Amenity Building
Design Freeze 7 drawing 312694/TD/043B/P2 shows a space available for retail or amenity facilities. No
details of these potential buildings are included in the scope of DF7.
7.6 Embankments
Design Freeze 7 drawings 312694/TD/043B/P2 indicates several embankments up to 3m in height with
slopes.
Geotechnical test data indicates open cast backfill to have a mean plasticity index of 19% and maximum
26%. Assuming a characteristic plasticity index of 24% and use of BS 8002 Table 2 the long term critical
angle of shearing resistance ’ parameters of 270 and c’=0 would be appropriate for long term slope
analysis. For a fully softened slope above groundwater level the safe long term gradient can be deduced
from tan (270)/1.25 after BS EN 1997-1. It is assumed that material shall be excavated and recompacted as
part of the car park ground works and therefore a maximum 1V:2.5H is appropriate for site won Class 2 fill,
i.e. a plan width of 7.5m for a 3m high slope.
7.7 Depot Cutting
Design Freeze 7 drawing 312694/TD/043/P2 indicates a small cutting up to 1m deep around the vehicle
stabling and depot building. The cutting shall be through open cast backfill where there is a risk of material
being variable. It is recommended that cutting slopes are slacker than embankment slopes due to the
greater degree of variability in non-engineered fill. There is adequate space to accommodate cutting slopes
of 1V:4H gradient and this shall ensure long term stability.
7.8 Depot Retaining Structure
Design Freeze 7 drawing 312694/TD/043B/P2 indicates a deep excavation and large retaining wall
between the depot building and depot car parking.
Alignment information for DF7 indicates a permanent retained height up to maximum 6m, with formation
level +43.5m at the depot building. A contiguous piled wall is recommended with instillation from a level
piling platform at approximately +49m and construction of a capping beam prior to bulk excavation in the
area of the depot building. A wall design has been carried out in accordance with Eurocode 7-1 with an
41
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
assumed rockhead level of +40m and indicates 15m long 900mm diameter cast in-situ piles at 1050mm
centres will be required.
Predicted deflection of the wall of a 6m high cantilever contiguous piled wall in stiff clay is 24mm, after Ciria
C580 Table 2.2, which is acceptable where there are no sensitive services or structures immediately
behind the wall. The most critical section in the wall design is the mid part of the southern wall where
maximum retained height exists without any support from corners. Where there are cuttings above the
crest of the wall, away from corner locations the retained height is reduced. Characteristic soil parameters
have not been provided for the depot wall and cutting due to insufficient information. Additional Ground
Investigation is recommended as follows:
Several Cable percussion boreholes are recommended along the line of the depot retaining wall to prove
the level of rockhead for detailed wall and design.
Additional Ground Investigation is recommended along the line of the proposed wall in order to confirm
depth to rock which will influence the wall design.
7.9 Settlement
Settlement of the opencast backfill is of concern as open cast backfill material is well documented to be
susceptible to inundation settlement resulting from wetting of the material.
In agreement with LCC magnetic extensometers were installed within boreholes RO77 and RO78 and
settlement monuments positioned following the intrusive works were complete.
The extensometers were monitored on 3 occasions prior to the project hiatus minimal settlement was
recorded between 0.001 and 0.004m. Further monitoring in January and May 2013 shows no trend of
settlement increasing with height in boreholes. It is therefore concluded that no settlement of the backfill
has been proven and that results up to 26mm displacement are due to inaccuracies when reading the
levels.
7.10 Pavement Design
The 2002 ground investigation indicates that in situ CBR tests were carried out on the opencast backfill
material, although only 2 laboratory results are presented in the report appendix. The main body of the text
indicates that the tests yielded mean CBR values in the range of 4% to 17% which was considered to
represent the generally firm and stiff nature of the clays that were tested.
Long term CBR values can also be estimated using the Highways Agency Interim Advice Note 73/06
Revision 1 “Design Guidance for Road Pavement Foundations (Draft HD25)26
, which assumes a high water
table and that foundations might be wetted by groundwater during their life which is likely given the ground
conditions at this site. Classification tests carried out on the opencast backfill indicated the plasticity index
to range between 12% and 26% with an average of 19% would yield an equilibrium subgrade of around 5%
assuming a thick layered construction of 1200mm and suitable drainage to ensure groundwater remains
below formation level.
Due to the nature of the opencast backfill material water softening at this site and the risk of water induced
settlement will also need to be considered to ensure the long term performance of the paving.
42
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
Excavation and compaction of a 1m thickness of the surface material would be prudent and possibly the
installation of geogrid beneath the paving to reduce the effect of any localised settlement.
7.11 Concrete Classification
Samples of the opencast backfill were taken during the 2002 ground investigation9, and therefore the
testing was carried out in accordance with BRE Concrete in Aggressive Ground Special Digest 1:2001. On
that basis some of the results have been adjusted to enable comparison with the current BRE SD1:200516
Concrete in Aggressive Ground 3rd
Edition.
Assuming a characteristic Total Potential Sulphate value of 0.34 % SO4 and characteristic value of pH of 5
the Design Sulphate Class should be DS-2 and ACEC class AC-3z. Consideration should be made as to
whether the Design Sulphate class should be increased to DS-3 to take account of winter salting.
7.12 Drainage
Soakaway testing was not carried out during either ground investigation due to the concern that the testing
could wash out the fines in the opencast backfill and induce settlement. On that basis it is also considered
that soakaway drainage for the park and ride site is not suitable.
This has been discussed further in Drainage Strategy MM Report No. 236834/RPT20/C – June 2010 which
indicates that the run off from the park and ride site shall be collected in attenuation ponds and discharged
into Stourton Beck.
7.13 Contamination and Waste Implications
Contamination testing carried out during the 2002 ground investigation was compared to current SGVs /
GACs, which indicate that the concentrations of contaminants fall below commercial / industrial generic
assessment criteria for human health and in the majority of cases concentrations of contaminants fall below
residential generic assessment criteria for human health.
A preliminary assessment of whether the opencast backfill material is hazardous or not was carried out by
using Waste Acceptance Criteria testing or CAT Waste SOIL
. It should be noted however, that this
categorisation is indicative only for costing and planning purpose and final categorisation of any excavated
material is the responsibility of the producer or the holder of the waste.
Analysis of the 2002 contamination testing data in CAT Waste SOIL
indicates that if any of the opencast
backfill material is proven not be suitable for re-use and require off-site disposal then it would not be
classified as hazardous waste. It should be noted, however, that the model cannot differentiate between
inert and non-hazardous waste for disposal purposes.
WAC testing undertaken during the 2010 ground investigation has indicated that the opencast backfill
material would be classified as inert material should it require off-site disposal.
7.14 Earthworks Assessment
Currently the surface of the former opencast pit undulates across the site and steepens sharply in the south
of the site, overall there is a 10m fall between the southern and northern portion of the site. DF6 information
indicates a cut up to 8m deep in the Depot staff parking at the southern end of the site, with depot building
formation level approximately +43.5m and crest of cut maximum +50m.
43
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
Cross Sections 236834/S/GEO/026 and 027 indicate that on the whole the excavated material will originate
from the opencast backfill, although a small quantity of rock will be encountered near the southern
boundary of the proposed DF7 works.
To determine the acceptability of materials for re-use a preliminary assessment of in-situ material
properties and earthworks relationships testing has been undertaken. The materials present were
compared with acceptability requirements for earthworks materials according to the Highways Agency
Specification for Highway Works Series 600.
PSD curves indicated the opencast backfill material would generally be classified as General Fill,
specifically 2A Wet Cohesive, 2B Dry Cohesive or 2C Stony Cohesive.
No specific gravity or compaction tests were carried out, therefore it is not possible to fully assess the
extent of processing required to change natural moisture to the acceptable range for compaction. It is
recommended that specific gravity and compaction MCV relationship tests are carried out prior to
commencement of earthworks and in-situ Sand Replacement tests during initial earthwork trials to confirm
the wet limit of acceptability at which >95% of the 2.5kg maximum dry density is achieved and the dry limit
of acceptability at which air void content is maximum 10%, after HA44/91 Cl.4.41. Previous experience and
published guidance (HA 44/91 Cl.4.14) indicates an MCV range of 8 to 14 is appropriate for initial
acceptability limits of cohesive colliery spoil, although heavy compaction plant may be able to achieve less
than 10% air voids at an MCV greater than 14.
Nine mc MCV relationship tests were carried out in 2010 and indicate and MCV range of 8-14 is equivalent
to a mc range of approximately 16-23%. Natural moisture content is generally in the acceptable range,
although locally material is too wet and will require some aeration or use as Class 4 landscaping fill.
During the site works, material from the excavations should be assessed for geotechnical and
contamination acceptability for re-use which will be detailed in the Earthworks Specification for the works.
7.15 Gas Risk Assessment
Gas monitoring has been carried out in accordance with the guidance presented in Appendix B.3 the
results are presented in Table 7.3.
Table 7.3: Stourton Park & Ride - Characteristic Gas Situation
Exploratory Holes
Gas Concentration
(% v/v)
Gas Flow Rate
(l/hr)
Site hazardous gas flow (l/hr)
Characteristic Situation
(CIRIA C665 17, BS8485 18)
RO76
Carbon Dioxide 8.4
Methane <0.1
0.1 0.0084
0.0001
2 - Low Risk (≥0.07,<0.7)
Based on monitoring carried out to date the risk to offline sections from gas is considered to be Low due to
the carbon dioxide concentration being at 8.4% v/v.
Confined spaces will be created during the construction of the underpass in which carbon dioxide could
collect. At 3% v/v humans can be affected by headaches and shortness of breath, therefore the short term
Occupational Exposure limit is 1.5% v/v and the long term Occupational Exposure Limit is 0.5% v/v as
determined by the Health and Safety Executive.
It is recommended that working practices are adjusted to limit the need for construction workers to enter
the excavations and if it is necessary, alarms are used to mitigate this risk.
44
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
Further gas monitoring will be carried out following which the above calculation and risk rating will need
reviewing.
In addition a PID meter was used during the gas monitoring to determine whether any volatile compounds
are present within the ground, at each location the meter read 0.0ppm.
45
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
This preliminary risk assessment has been updated from the risk assessment presented in the Desk Study
Report and summaries the significant residual risks based on review of the findings from the preliminary
ground investigation. The risks are described by design elements covered in Sections 3 to Section 8 of this
report.
The risk register has been based upon the methods defined in HD22/02[27]
. The criteria upon which risk is
assessed are defined in Table 8.1 to Table to 8.3 inclusive and the risk register itself is presented as Table
8.4.
Table 8.1: Risk Level Matrix
IMPACT
VL L M H VH
LIK
EL
IHO
OD
VL VL L L L M
L L L M M H
M L M M H VH
H L M H VH VH
VH M H VH VH VH
Table 8.2: Hazard Likelihood Index
LIKELIHOOD PROBABILITY
1 VL Negligible / Improbable <1%
2 L Unlikely / Remote >1%
3 M Likely / Possible >10%
4 H Probable >50%
5 VH Very likely / Almost certain >90%
8. Preliminary Geotechnical and Contamination Risk Assessment
46 312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
Table 8.3: Hazard Impact Index
Impact Cost Time Reputation Health and Safety
Environment
VL Very Low Negligible Negligible Negligible effect on programme
Negligible Negligible Negligible
L Low Significant 1% budget
5% effect on programme
Minor effect on local company image. .business relationship mildly affected
Minor injury Minor environmental incident
M Medium Serious 10%budget
12% effect on programme
Local media exposure / business relationship affected
Major injury Environmental incident requiring management input
H High Threat to future work and client relations
20% budget 25% effect on programme
Nationwide media exposure/ business relationship greatly affected
Fatality
Environmental incident leading to prosecution or protestor action
VH Very High
Threat to business survival and credibility
50% budget 50% effect on programme
Permanent nationwide effect on company image / significant impact on business relation ship
Multiple fatalities
Major environmental incident with irreversible effects and threat to public health or protected natural resource
47 312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
Table 8.4: Preliminary Geotechnical and Contamination Risk Register
Threat Consequence Impact
Lik
eli
ho
od
Risk Risk Control Measures / Actions to Mitigate
Co
st
Pro
gra
mm
e
Re
pu
tati
on
H&
S
En
vir
on
me
nt
Co
st
Pro
gra
mm
e
Re
pu
tati
on
H&
S
En
vir
on
me
nt
Offline Sections
Construction of offline sections within a sub-grade of Made Ground.
Made Ground may not be suitable sub-grade material. Subsequent rutting and pavement deterioration and maintenance costs.
L VL VL VL VL H M L L
L L The formation should be inspected by a suitably experienced engineer. Should soft or loose material be encountered, remedial ground treatment may be required as described in Section 3.5.
Excess material containing contaminants that exceed SVG’s and GAC’s for metals and inorganic contaminants and also elevated levels of contaminants.
Boreholes identified in Table 3.14 contain material classified as Hazardous Waste. Increase costs for disposal if material is geotechnically unsuitable.
M VL VL L L H H L L M M Limit the amount of material to be disposed of at a licensed waste facility by utilising ground improvement techniques or re-using materials as screening bunds etc.
Encountering coal seams whilst constructing the pavement foundation.
Unsuitable founding stratum. Coal will need to be excavated in accordance with Coal Authority licensing agreement. Could potentially incur extra costs. Risk of combustion if left untreated.
L L VL VL L M M M L L M Coal seams should be excavated and replaced with mass concrete to limit the penetrations of air and reduce risk of combustion.
Online Sections
Excess material including black top and aggregate from the resurfacing works. Material will require assessment to determine whether it can be re-used.
Increased cost of disposal if excess black top and aggregate from the resurfacing works is unsuitable for re-use in other schemes.
L VL VL VL L M M L L L M Wherever possible re-use materials. Assessment will be required to determine suitability.
48 312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
Threat Consequence Impact
Lik
eli
ho
od
Risk Risk Control Measures / Actions to Mitigate
Co
st
Pro
gra
mm
e
Re
pu
tati
on
H&
S
En
vir
on
me
nt
Co
st
Pro
gra
mm
e
Re
pu
tati
on
H&
S
En
vir
on
me
nt
Balm Road Bridge
Possible mine workings beneath the site encountered during both ground investigations carried out. Driller noted loss of core during drilling and coal seams present. No loss of flush was recorded.
Voids, if present, may migrate upwards as loads are applied during the construction phase. The voids may undermine the pad foundations and cause collapse.
M L VL VL L H H M L L M It is recommended a mining risk assessment of the area is carried out for the area and a further intrusive investigation to locate any possible voids.
If further voids are encountered, grouting is likely to be required in order to utilise the pad footing option or consideration is to be given to pile foundations.
Encountering coal seams whilst constructing the foundation for the retaining walls and approach embankments.
Unsuitable founding stratum. Coal will need to be excavated in accordance with Coal Authority licensing agreement. Could potentially incur extra costs. Risk of combustion if left untreated.
M VL VL VL L H H L L L M Coal seams should be excavated and replaced with mass concrete to limit the penetrations of air and reduce risk of combustion.
Encountering Made Ground and/or soft River Terrace Deposits at the formation level for the bridge, retaining walls and approach embankments, may not have sufficient bearing resistance for the construction of the bridge.
Insufficient bearing resistance beneath the foundation could lead to bearing resistance failure.
L L VL VL VL M M M L L L Formation level should be inspected by a suitably qualified engineer. The Made Ground and/or soft River Terrace Deposits could be modified by ground replacement or improvement techniques.
Excess material containing contaminants that exceed SVG’s and GAC’s for metals and inorganic contaminants and also elevated levels of contaminants beneath the location of the northern approach embankment.
Boreholes identified in Table 5.8 contain material classified as Hazardous Waste. Increase costs for disposal if material is geotechnically unsuitable.
M VL VL L L H H L L M M Limit the amount of material to be disposed of at a licensed waste facility by utilising ground improvement techniques where possible.
49 312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
Threat Consequence Impact
Lik
eli
ho
od
Risk Risk Control Measures / Actions to Mitigate
Co
st
Pro
gra
mm
e
Re
pu
tati
on
H&
S
En
vir
on
me
nt
Co
st
Pro
gra
mm
e
Re
pu
tati
on
H&
S
En
vir
on
me
nt
Health and Safety of workers during the construction of the foundations of the bridge due to the presence of contaminants.
Possible illness via contaminant transport pathways.
M VL VL L L H H L L M M Appropriate working practices should be employed in order to reduce direct contact with Made Ground. All employees to wear appropriate PPE.
Stourton Park and Ride
Aggressive ground conditions.
Aggressive ground conditions may be encountered. Sulphate attack on concrete may result in long term failure.
L VL VL VL VL H M L L L L Review of testing data from ground investigations is recommended. Assume worst case concrete class in accordance with BRE SD1.
Acceptability of material on site for earthworks has not been assessed.
Potential for material to have to be disposed offsite if excavated and deemed unsuitable for earthworks and unacceptable for landscaping.
M L L L M M M M M M M Review of existing ground investigation information.
Construction of slopes. Possibility of slope failure on site.
L L M M VL M M M M M L Review of existing ground investigation information. A slope stability assessment is recommended in order to design safe slope angles for the earthworks.
Contaminated material may be present on site.
If encountered on site, the material may require offsite disposal and may affect site workers.
M L L L M M M M M M M Review of contamination testing data from the site.
Settlement of open cast backfill during and on completion of construction of the bus depot and car parking area.
Differential settlement within the foundations of structures, cracking in the walls and pavement of the car park. Ongoing maintenance.
M L VL VL VL M M M L L L Continual monitoring of settlement monuments installed during the recent ground investigation. Consideration should be made to building design with movement joints to reduce effects of differential settlement on the structures.
50 312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
Threat Consequence Impact
Lik
eli
ho
od
Risk Risk Control Measures / Actions to Mitigate
Co
st
Pro
gra
mm
e
Re
pu
tati
on
H&
S
En
vir
on
me
nt
Co
st
Pro
gra
mm
e
Re
pu
tati
on
H&
S
En
vir
on
me
nt
Groundwater regime not fully defined within the site.
Excavations may encounter perched water within the open cast backfill.
L L VL VL L M M M L L M Review existing groundwater monitoring data. If there is insufficient monitoring data available, it may be prudent to install shallow groundwater monitoring standpipes within the site and carry out a period of monitoring.
Encountering coal seams during construction.
Unsuitable founding stratum. Coal will need to be excavated in accordance with Coal Authority licensing agreement. Could potentially incur extra costs. Risk of combustion if left untreated.
M VL VL VL L H H L L L M Coal seams should be excavated and replaced with mass concrete to limit the penetrations of air and reduce risk of combustion.
51
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
Based on the foregoing, it would be advisable to carry out a supplementary ground investigation for specific
structures along the South Line, as the design has progressed since the scoping of the preliminary ground
investigation. The supplementary ground investigation should aim to target the following areas:
the cutting slope between Balm Road Bridge and Wakefield Road Bridge;
potential for voids beneath the footings for Balm Road Bridge;
the footings for the approach embankments for Balm Road Bridge;
suitability of excavated materials for earthworks;
to carry out a mining assessment where the potential for underground mining exists;
to investigate iconic bus stops; and
geotechnical engineering assessment for structures, embankments, cuttings and earthworks at Stourton
Park and Ride;
continued groundwater monitoring along the route and settlement instrument monitoring at the Stourton
Park and Ride site. CBR testing at natural and optimum moisture content for areas of car parking and
from proposed cuttings where material may be re used as highway embankment fill.
9. Recommendations for Further Work
52
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
[1] Mott MacDonald, Leeds New Generation Transport, South Line Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Desk
Study, Report No. 236834/RPT14B, July 2009;
[2] Mott MacDonald, Proposed Ground Investigation Scope, Technical Note No. 236834/TN28B,
October 2009
[3] Mott MacDonald, Leeds New Generation Transport, Ground Investigation Report - South Line,
Report No. 236834/RPT52A, May 2010;
[4] Mott MacDonald Leeds New Generation Transport, Ground Investigation Report – South Line
Report No. 312694/RPT039A, February 2013
[5] Mott MacDonald, NGT Route Development, Railway Retaining Walls High Level Feasibility Report,
Report No. 236834/RPT29A, Rev A, November 2009;
[6] Mott MacDonald, NGT Route Development, Balm Road Bridge High Level Feasibility Report,
Report No. 236834/RPT32, November 2009, Rev A;
[7] Mott Mac Donald, NGT Route Development, Westbury Place North Underpass High Level
Feasibility Report, Report No. 236834/RPT35, Rev A, November 2009;
[8] Norwest Holst Soil Engineering- Report on a ground investigation at Stourton Park and Ride,
Supertram, Report No. F12433, 2002
[9] Norwest Holst Soil Engineering, Report on a Ground Investigation for Hunslet Sidings, Report No.
F12800, November 2003;
[10] Norwest Holst Soil Engineering, Report on a Ground Investigation for Leeds New Generation
Transport, Report No. F15694, March 2010;
[11] Environment Agency, Groundwater Protection Policy and Practice (GP3)
[12] Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC (WFD)
[13] The Coal Authority, Coal Mining Referral Area Plans, September 2010,
http://coal.decc.gov.uk/en/coal/cms/services/planning/strategy/Leeds/Leeds.aspx
[14] British Standard – BS8002 – Code of practise for Earth Retaining Structures.
[15] IAN 73/06 Rev1 (2009) Design Guidance For Road Pavement Foundations (Draft HD25)
[16] BRE Concrete Division – Special Digest 1:2005, Third Edition. Concrete in aggressive ground;
[17] CIRIA C665, Assessing risks posed by hazardous ground gases to buildings, 2007;
[18] British Standards, Code of practice for the characterization and remediation from ground gas in
affected developments, Ref. BS8485, 2007;
[19] Mott MacDonald, NGT Route Development, Construction Methodology Study, Report No.
236834/RPT21, dated November 2009;
[20] British Standards, Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design - Par 1: General Rules, Ref. BS EN 1997-
1:2004, January 2010;
[21] BGS, Technical Report WA/92/1, Leeds: A geological background for planning and development
(1992)
[22] Highways Agency, Specification for Highways Works, Series 600, 2009
[23] Network Rail, Examination of Earthworks, Document No. NR/L3/CIV/065, December 2008
[24] British Geological Survey, 1:10,000 scale, Sheet SE33SW
[25] Turner and Grose, The performance of bored and CFA piling within the mudstones of Central
England, Tunnel Construction & Piling 1999. International Symposium & Exhibition, London 1999.
[26] IAN 73/06 Rev1 (2009) Design Guidance For Road Pavement Foundations (Draft HD25)
[27] Highways Agency Design Manual for roads and bridges Volume 4 Section 1 Part 2, Geotechnics
and Drainage. Earthworks, Managing geotechnical risk HD22/08, 2008
[28] Mott Macdonald, Leeds New Generation Transport, Belle Isle Route Geo-environmental Desk
Study, Report 312694/RPT048A, May 2013
[29] Mott Macdonald, Leeds New Generation Transport, Preferred Alignment Pack DF7, June 2013
10. References
53
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
Appendix A. Contamination and Waste Assessment Methodology 54
Appendix B. Calculation Methodology 65
Appendix C. Limitations 68
Appendices
54
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
A.1. Scope of Testing
During the scoping of the preliminary ground investigation, it was agreed with LCC Contaminated Land
Officer that the overall risk to human health from the scheme was likely to be low and a large scale testing
of soils for human health risk across the entire route would be unadvisable at this preliminary stage of the
scheme. It was therefore agreed that soil testing and leachate testing of water extract would only be carried
out in areas where contamination was anticipated i.e. based on historical land use and / or visual or
olfactory evidence of contamination was noted during the ground investigation works.
The suite of contaminants tested for in soil included:
Table A.1: Soil Testing Suite
Metallic Elements Semi-metal / non- metal Elements
Organic Compounds Inorganic Compounds and Others
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Vanadium
Zinc
Arsenic
Boron
Selenium
TPH CWG (aliphatic / aromatic split with CWG banding by GCMS)
PAH (Speciated by GCMS)
VOCs including BTEX
Phenols
pH
Asbestos Screen
Water Soluble Sulphate
Total Sulphur
The suite of contaminants tested for leachate extract from soil included:
Table A.2: Leachate Extract from Soil testing suite
Metallic Elements Semi-metal / non- metal Elements
Organic Compounds Inorganic Compounds and Others
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Arsenic
Selenium
PAH (Speciated by GCMS)
pH
Sulphate
Appendix A. Contamination and Waste Assessment Methodology
55
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
The suite of contamination testing for groundwater included;
Table A.3: Groundwater Testing Suite
Metallic Elements Semi-metal / non- metal Elements
Organic Compounds Inorganic Compounds and Others
Beryllium
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Vanadium
Arsenic
Selenium
Boron
PAH (Speciated by GCMS)
pH
Sulphate
In addition it was considered appropriate to carry out Waste Acceptance Criteria tests to determine what
category of waste excavated materials would classified as if disposed to landfill. This was confined to areas
of Made Ground and significant proposed cut materials to allow cost estimates to be made.
Table A.4: WAC Testing Suite
Metallic Elements
( 10: 1 Leachate)
Semi-metal / non- metal Elements
( 10: 1 Leachate)
Organic Compounds
Inorganic and Other
( 10: 1 Leachate)
Solid Testing
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Zinc
Vanadium
Antimony
Arsenic
Selenium
Boron
Phenol Index
pH
Sulphate
Chloride
Fluoride
Total Dissolved Solids
Dissolved Organic content
Total Organic Carbon
Loss on Ignition
BTEX
PCBs (7 congeners)
PAH Speciated (17)
pH
Acid Neutralisation Capacity
TPH Total WAC
56
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
A.2. Assessment Criteria
A.2.1. Human Health
Due to a change in statutory guidance, the Environment Agency (EA) has issued new software (CLEA
V1.06) for the analysis for site specific assessment criteria but has not issued all the supporting guidance
documents and data. Throughout 2009 the EA issued new version 2 CLEA soil guideline values (CLEA
SGVs) for Inorganic Arsenic, Nickel, Selenium, cadmium, Inorganic Mercury, BTEX, Phenol and PCBs.
Recognised industry bodies have determined other Generic Assessment Criteria which have been peer
reviewed and have gained support from a wide range of organisations. DEFRA has announced that a
revision to the Statutory Guidance will be made during 2010. In the meantime MM will use in order of
preference, the 2009 CLEA SGVs, the LQM/CIEH Generic Assessment Criteria for Human Health Risk
Assessment (2nd
Edition) 2009 and the CL:AIRE/AGS GACs where contaminant SGV reports have not
been published. The exception to this rule is Lead where the Version 1 CLEA SGV is retained for use.
For the purpose of this scheme soil testing results have been compared against the commercial / industrial
guideline values, although the residential guidelines are also presented below for completeness
Table A.5: Human Health Risk Assessment Soil Guideline Values
CLEA Guidelines
LQM CIEH
CL:AIRE
6% SOM 2.5% SOM 1% SOM
Contaminant Residential Commercial Residential Commercial Residential Commercial
Arsenic 32 640 - - - -
Barium 1300 22000
Beryllium 51 420 - - - -
Boron 291 192000 - - - -
Cadmium 10 230 - - - -
Chromium (III) 3000 30400 - - - -
Chromium (VI) 4.3 35 - - - -
Copper 2330 71700 - - - -
Elemental Mercury (Hg) 1 26 - - - -
Inorganic Mercury (Hg2+) 170 3600 - - - -
Methyl Mercury (Hg+) 11 410 - - - -
Nickel 130 1800 - - - -
Selenium 350 13000 - - - -
Vanadium 75 3160 - - - -
Zinc 3750 665000 - - - -
Lead 450 750
o-xylene 250 2600 - - - -
m-xylene 240 3500 - - - -
p-xylene 230 3200 - - - -
Ethylbenzene 350 2800 - - - -
Toluene 610 4400 - - - -
Benzene 0.33 95 - - - -
Aliphatic EC 5-6 110 13000 (1150) 55 6200 (558) 30 3400 (304)
Aliphatic EC >6-8 370 42000 (736) 160 18000 (322) 73 8300 (144)
Aliphatic EC >8-10 110 12000 (451) 46 5100 (190) 19 2100 (78)
Aliphatic EC >10-12 540 (283) 49000 (283) 230 (118) 24000 (118) 93 (48) 10000 (48)
Aliphatic EC >12-16 3000 (142) 91000 (142 1700 (59) 83000 (59) 740 (24) 61000 (24)
57
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
CLEA Guidelines
LQM CIEH
CL:AIRE
6% SOM 2.5% SOM 1% SOM
Contaminant Residential Commercial Residential Commercial Residential Commercial
Aliphatic EC >16-35 76000 1800000 64000 (21) 1800000 45000 (8.48) 1600000
Aliphatic EC >35-44 76000 1800000 64000 (21) 1800000 45000 (8.48) 1600000
Aromatic EC 5-7 (benzene) 280 90000 (4710) 130
49000 (2260) 65
28000 (1220)
Aromatic EC >7-8 (toluene) 611 190000 (4360) 270
110000 (1920) 120 59000 (869)
Aromatic EC >8-10 151 18000 (3580) 65 8600 (1500) 27 3700 (613)
Aromatic EC >10-12 346 34500 (2150) 160 29000 (899) 69 17000 (364)
Aromatic EC >12-16 593 37800 310 37000 140 36000 (169)
Aromatic EC >16-21 770 28000 480 28000 250 28000
Aromatic EC >21-35 1230 28000 1100 28000 890 28000
Aromatic EC >35-44 1230 28000 1100 28000 890 28000 Aliphatic + Aromatic EC >44-70 1300 28000 1300 28000 1200 28000
Acenaphthene 1000 100000 480 98000 (141) 210 85000 (57)
Acenaphthylene 850 100000 400 97000 (212) 170 84000 (86)
Anthracene 9200 540000 4900 540000 2300 530000
Benz[a]anthracene 5.9 97 4.7 95 3.1 90
Benzo[a]pyrene 1 14 0.94 14 0.83 14
Benzo[b]fluoranthene 7 100 6.5 100 5.6 100
Benzo[ghi]perylene 47 660 46 660 44 650
Benzo[k]fluoranthene 10 140 9.6 140 8.5 140
Chrysene 9.3 140 8 140 6 140
Dibenz[ah]anthracene 0.9 13 0.86 13 0.76 13
Fluoranthene 670 23000 460 23000 260 23000
Fluorene 780 71000 380 69000 160 64000 (31)
Indeno[123-cd]pyrene 4.2 62 3.9 61 3.2 60
Naphthalene 8.7 1100 (432) 3.7 480 (183) 1.5 200 (76)
Phenanthrene 380 23000 200 22000 92 22000
Pyrene 1600 54000 1000 54000 560 54000
1,2-Dichloroethane 0.014 1.8 0.008 1 0.0054 0.71
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 28 3100 13 1400 6.2 700
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 6.3 1200 2.9 580 1.4 290
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 4.8 590 2.1 260 0.9 120
Tetrachloroethene 4.8 660 2.1 290 0.94 130
Tetrachloromethane (aka carbon tetrachloride) 0.089 15 0.039 6.6 0.018 3
Trichloroethene 0.49 55 0.22 25 0.11 12 Trichloromethane (aka chloroform) 2.7 370 1.3 190 0.75 110 Chloroethene (aka vinyl chloride) 0.00099 0.12 0.00064 0.081 0.00047 0.063
2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene (TNT) 8 1100 3.7 1000 1.6 1000
RDX 16 6400 7.4 6400 3.5 6400
HMX 26 110000 13 110000 5.7 110000
Aldrin 2.1 54 2 54 1.7 54
Dieldrin 2.2 92 1.4 91 0.69 90
Atrazine 1.3 880 0.56 880 0.24 870
Dichlorvos 1.3 893 0.6 872 0.29 842
Alpha-Endosulfan 16 3390 7 2990 (0.007) 2.9 2310 (0.003)
58
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
CLEA Guidelines
LQM CIEH
CL:AIRE
6% SOM 2.5% SOM 1% SOM
Contaminant Residential Commercial Residential Commercial Residential Commercial
Beta-Endosulfan 15 3480 6.6 3160 (0.0002) 2.8
2580 (0.00007)
Alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexanes (including Lindane) 100 14900 46 14600 19 14000 Beta-Hexachlorocyclohexanes (including Lindane) 8.5 1130 3.9 1130 1.7 1120 Gamma-Hexachlorocyclohexanes (including Lindane) 3 552 1.4 546 0.58 532
Chlorobenzene 1.7 310 0.73 130 0.33 59
1,2-dichlorobenzene 91 12000 (3240) 39 5100 (1370) 16 2100 (571)
1,3-dichlorobenzene 1.7 180 0.7 77 0.29 32
1,4-dichlorobenzene 167 22000 (1280) 72 10000 (540) 30 4500 (224)
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 6.1 620 2.6 270 1 110
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 11 1300 4.5 560 1.8 230
1,3,5-Trichlorobenzene 1.3 140 0.57 57.8 0.23 24
1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene 62 4500 (728) 29 3200 (304) 12 1800 (122)
1,2,3,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 2.8 250 (235) 1.2 120 (98.1) 0.49 52 (39.4)
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 1.4 97 0.68 73 (49.1) 0.3 44 (19.7)
Pentachlorobenzene 17 830 10 770 (107) 5.2 650 (43)
Hexachlorobenzene 1.4 55 1 (0.5) 53 0.59 (0.20) 48 (0.20)
Phenol 420 3200 - - - - Chlorophenols (except pentachlorophenol) 4.4 4200 2 4000 0.87 3500
Pentachlorophenol 2.96 1400 1.3 1300 0.55 1200
Carbon disulphide 0.44 50 0.2 23 0.1 12
Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene 1.2 120 0.51 69 0.21 32
A.2.2. Leachate and Groundwater
The results of the leachate extract from soil and groundwater testing have been compared against the
Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) for Freshwater and in the absence of EQS values by the UK
Drinking Water Quality Standards (DWQS). A summary of the guideline values are presented below in
Table A.6.
Table A.6: Leachate and Groundwater testing Assessment Guideline Values
Contaminant EQS Freshwater
UK DWQS
(µg/l) (µg/l)
pH 6-9 6.5 - 10.0
Sulphate as SO4 (mg/l) 400,000 -
Dissolved Boron - 2000
Dissolved Arsenic 50 -
Dissolved Cadmium 5 -
Dissolved Chromium 5 - 250 -
Dissolved Lead 4 - 250 -
59
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
Contaminant EQS Freshwater
UK DWQS
Dissolved Mercury 1 -
Dissolved Selenium - 10
Dissolved Copper 1 - 28 -
Dissolved Nickel 5 - 200 -
Dissolved Zinc 8 - 500 -
Dissolved Iron 1000 -
Vanadium 20 - 60
Phenols Monohydric - -
Acenaphthene - -
Acenaphthylene - -
Anthracene - -
Benz(a)anthracene - -
Benzo(a)pyrene - 0.01
Benzo(b)fluoranthene - -
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene - -
Benzo(k)fluoranthene - -
Chrysene - -
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene - -
fluoranthene - -
Fluorene - -
Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrene - -
Naphthalene 10 -
Phenanthrene - -
Pyrene - -
Total PAH (sum of Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Benzo(g,h,i)perylene & Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrene)
- 0.1
A.2.3. Waste Categorisation
In order to determine the possible waste classification of the material, the WAC testing results have been
compared against the Landfill Waste Criteria for Granular summarised in Table A.7 below.
Table A.7: Landfill Waste Acceptance Criteria for Granular Wastes
Contaminant Landfill Waste Acceptance Criteria Limits
Inert Waste Landfill Stable Non-reactive hazardous waste in non-hazardous landfill
Hazardous waste Landfill
Solid Waste Analysis
Total Organic Carbon (%) 3 5 6*
Loss on Ignition (%) - - 10*
Sum of BTEX (mg/kg) 6 - -
Sum of 7 PCBs (mg/kg) 1 - -
Mineral Oil (mg/kg) 500 - -
PAH Sum of 17 (mg/kg)** 100 - -
pH - >6 -
Limit Values for Compliance leachate testing using BS EN124573 at L/S 101kg
Arsenic 0.5 2 25
Barium 20 100 300
60
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
Contaminant Landfill Waste Acceptance Criteria Limits
Inert Waste Landfill Stable Non-reactive hazardous waste in non-hazardous landfill
Hazardous waste Landfill
Cadmium 0.04 1 5
Chromium 0.5 10 70
Copper 2 50 100
Mercury 0.01 0.2 2
Molybdenum 0.5 10 30
Nickel 0.4 10 40
Lead 0.5 10 50
Antimony 0.06 0.7 5
Selenium 0.1 0.5 7
Zinc 4 50 200
Chloride 800 15000 25000
Fluoride 10 150 500
Sulphate as SO4 1000# 20000 50000
Total Dissolved Solids 4000 60000 100000
Phenols 1 - -
Dissolved Organic Carbon@
500⊕ 800 1000
* Either TOC or LOI must be used for hazardous wastes
** UK PAH limit values are being consulted upon (Draft Landfill Amendment Regulations 2005)
# If an inert waste does not meet the SO4 L/S10 limit, alternative limit values of 1500 mg l-1 SO4 at C0 (initial eluate from
the percolation test (prCEN/TS 14405:2003)) AND 6000 mg kg-1 SO4 at L/S10 (either from the percolation test or batch
test BS EN 12457-3), can be used to demonstrate compliance with the acceptance criteria for inert wastes.
+ The values for TDS can be used instead of the values for Cl and SO4.
@ DOC at pH 7.5-8.0 and L/S10 can be determined on eluate derived from a modified version of the pH dependence
test, prCEN/TS 14429:2003, if the limit value at own pH (BS EN 12457 eluate) is not met.
⊕ In the case of soils, a higher TOC limit value may be permitted by the Environment Agency at an inert waste landfill,
provided the DOC value of 500mg/kg is achieved at L/S 10 l/kg, either at the soils own pH or at a pH value between 7.5
and 8.0.
From: Landfill Regulations 2002 as amended.
In addition to the above WAC testing MM have used Atkins and McArdle group, CAT-WASTESOIL
Waste
Soils Characterisation Assessment Tool. Following current regulations and guidance, this on-line tool
provides developers of brownfield and contaminated sites and their advisors with a quick, easy to use web-
based facility that allows rapid assessment of contaminated soils, and their classification as either
hazardous or non-hazardous waste. It does not account for physical properties such as organic content
and loss on ignition.
61
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
A.2.4. Summary of Contamination Testing
South Line Groundwater Test Results
EQS EQS EQS DWQS EQS DWQS EQS EQS
Project ID Zinc Vanadium Sulphate as SO4 Selenium Pyrene Phenanthrene pH Total PAH* Total (of 16) PAHs Nickel Naphthalene Magnesium
Leeds New Generation Transport (NGT) Water Water Water Water Water (Organic) Water (Organic) Water Water Water (Organic) Water Water (Organic) Water
Lower Limit 8 20 400 10 6 0.1 50 10
Upper Limit 50 60 400 10 9 0.1 200 10
Hole ID Depth UNITS µg/l µg/l mg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l mg/l
Wakefield Road CRS71 9.7 7.3 <1 120 1.8 <0.01 <0.01 7.1 0.04 <0.2 13 <0.01 27
Hunslet Rd DS53A 2.94 6.6 <1 90 20 <0.01 <0.01 7.3 0.04 <0.2 8.5 <0.01 150
DS59 2.23 25 <1 650 5.4 <0.01 <0.01 7.1 0.04 1.4 11 1.4 68
DS64 1.77 14 1.8 370 4.1 <0.01 <0.01 7.3 0.04 <0.2 5 <0.01 27
Hunslet Sidings DS66 1.82 27 1.3 200 5.7 <0.01 <0.01 6.5 0.04 <0.2 9.9 <0.01 42
Stourton P&R RO76 1.37 49 <1 190 2.1 <0.01 <0.01 6.1 0.04 <0.2 46 <0.01 25
* Sum of benzo (b) flouranthene, benzo(k)flouranthene, benzo(ghi)perylene and Indeno (123 cd)pyrene
Balm Road
Bridge
South Line Groundwater Test Results
Project ID
Leeds New Generation Transport (NGT)
Lower Limit
Upper Limit
Hole ID Depth UNITS
Wakefield Road CRS71 9.7
Hunslet Rd DS53A 2.94
DS59 2.23
DS64 1.77
Hunslet Sidings DS66 1.82
Stourton P&R RO76 1.37
Balm Road
Bridge
EQS EQS EQS
Lead Indeno (1,2,3 - cd) pyrene Fluoranthene Fluorene Dibenzo (ah) anthracene Copper Chrysene Chromium Cadmium Benzo (k) fluoranthene Benzo (ghi) perylene Benzo (b) fluoranthene
Water Water (Organic) Water (Organic) Water (Organic) Water (Organic) Water Water (Organic) Water Water Water (Organic) Water (Organic) Water (Organic)
4 1 5 5
20 28 50 5
µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l
<1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 1.1 <0.01 <1 <0.08 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
<1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 3.8 <0.01 9.1 <0.08 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
<1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 1.3 <0.01 8.6 <0.08 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
<1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 2 <0.01 7 <0.08 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
<1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 2.4 <0.01 5.5 <0.08 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
<1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <1 <0.01 <1 0.09 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
South Line Groundwater Test Results
Project ID
Leeds New Generation Transport (NGT)
Lower Limit
Upper Limit
Hole ID Depth UNITS
Wakefield Road CRS71 9.7
Hunslet Rd DS53A 2.94
DS59 2.23
DS64 1.77
Hunslet Sidings DS66 1.82
Stourton P&R RO76 1.37
Balm Road
Bridge
DWQS EQS EQS
Benzo (a) pyrene Benzo (a) anthracene Beryllium Barium Boron Arsenic Anthanthrene Acenaphthylene
Water (Organic) Water (Organic) Water Water Water Water Water (Organic) Water (Organic)
0.01 1000 50
0.01 1000 50
µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l
<0.01 <0.01 <1 38 <20 <1 <0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <1 65 320 4.3 <0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <1 45 330 2.4 <0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <1 58 180 2.4 <0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <1 34 35 1.6 <0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <1 25 45 <1 <0.01 <0.01
South Line Soil Test Results LQM
Project ID Zinc Vanadium
Total
petroleum
hydrocarbons Thiocyanate Selenium pH
Phenol
(Total) Lead Total PCB PAH total Nickel
Indeno (1,2,3 -
cd) pyrene Mercury
Solid (Acid
extract)
Solid (Acid
extract)
Solid (Acid
extract)
Solid (2:1
Soil/Water
extract)
Solid (Acid
extract)
Solid (Acid
extract)
Solid (Acid
extract)
Residential 3750 75 1000 350 0 0 450 1000 130 4.2 170
Commercial 665000 3160 1000 13000 0 0 750 1000 18000 62 3600
Hole ID Depth
TPS42 3.5 120 25 <10 0.59 7.7 <0.3 30 <2 38 <0.1 <0.1
TPS43 2.5 54 12 <10 <0.2 8.1 <0.3 29 <2 18 <0.1 0.21
TPS44 1 62 48 <10 0.69 8.7 <0.3 130 <2 38 <0.1 0.4
TPS73 1.5 81 18 140 <0.2 8.4 <0.3 50 140 22 9 0.14
TPS74 0.3 110 47 81 0.58 8.5 <0.3 140 34 24 1.3 0.42
53
WSS38 0.5 63 78 2600 <0.2 10.9 <0.3 61 59 18 4.6 0.28
3800
WSS40 1 76 31 <10 0.29 8.9 <0.3 170 16 24 0.3 1.6
WSS45 1 79 34 <10 <0.2 8 <0.3 39 11 20 <0.1 <0.1
WSS48 0.5 330 80 1400 0.79 8 <0.3 270 1600 98 49 0.25
1100
WSS49 0.5 85 54 64 0.3 8.3 <0.3 330 200 60 5.8 0.44
520 8.3 1.8
WSS55A 3.05 27 26 21000 <0.2 7.8 <0.3 8.7 3600 14 14 <0.1
6500
WSS63 1 63 160 1000 0.29 8.3 <0.3 360 47 1.8
CRS60 1 67 23 1300 <0.2 9 <0.3 93 20 21 0.7 0.15
SPRTP01 1.6 9.4 14 <1.0 4.4 <1.0 16 <10 1.6 <1.0
SPRTP01 2.5 16.5 <10 <1.0 4.5 <1.0 2.8 <10 5.8 <1.0
SPRTP02 0.9 21.7 <10 <1.0 5.1 <1.0 <0.5 <10 13.8 <1.0
SPRTP02 1.9 14.2 <10 <1.0 6 <1.0 <0.5 <10 5.3 <1.0
SPRTP02 2.5 19.4 <10 <1.0 6 <1.0 2.7 <10 6.8 <1.0
SPRTP03 0.6 41.2 <10 <1.0 5.1 <1.0 8.1 <10 17.8 <1.0
SPRTP04 0.8 66.1 <10 <1.0 5.8 <1.0 6.2 <10 28.6 <1.0
SPRTP04 1.7 46.5 <10 <1.0 5.8 <1.0 11.3 <10 22.3 <1.0
SPRTP05 0.8 62.1 <10 <1.0 5.8 <1.0 8.2 <10 25.1 <1.0
SPRTP05 1.8 56.8 <10 <1.0 5 <1.0 11.4 <10 28.1 <1.0
SPRTP06 0.9 67.4 <10 <1.0 5.4 <1.0 5.7 <10 28.2 <1.0
SPRTP06 1.8 89.8 <10 <1.0 6.6 <1.0 7.2 <10 35.2 <1.0
SPRTP07 0.6 76.2 <10 <1.0 6.8 <1.0 4.4 <10 26.2 <1.0
SPRTP07 1.8 82.4 <10 <1.0 6.5 <1.0 4.8 <10 34.9 <1.0
SPRTP08 0.8 76.6 11 <1.0 6.3 <1.0 10.3 <10 27.1 <1.0
SPRTP08 2.9 74.1 <10 <1.0 7.2 <1.0 7.2 <10 36.5 <1.0
SPRTP09 1.5 77.8 <10 <1.0 6.6 <1.0 6.2 <10 32.5 <1.0
SPRTP09 2.8 78.6 <10 <1.0 6.5 <1.0 6.1 <10 34.8 <1.0
SPRTP10 0.8 76.5 <10 <1.0 5.6 <1.0 <0.5 <10 41.5 <1.0
SPRTP10 2 67.2 <10 <1.0 6 <1.0 <0.5 <10 38.8 <1.0
SPRTP11 0.7 87.2 <10 <1.0 6.6 <1.0 <0.5 <10 45.4 <1.0
SPRTP12 0.6 74.9 <10 <1.0 5.9 <1.0 3.4 <10 32.5 <1.0
SPRTP13 0.6 86.2 <10 <1.0 5.4 <1.0 1.7 <10 34.7 <1.0
SPRTP13 1.7 68.9 <10 <1.0 5.6 <1.0 <0.5 <10 32.2 <1.0
South Line Soil Test Results LQM
Project ID Zinc Vanadium
Total
petroleum
hydrocarbons Thiocyanate Selenium pH
Phenol
(Total) Lead Total PCB PAH total Nickel
Indeno (1,2,3 -
cd) pyrene Mercury
Solid (Acid
extract)
Solid (Acid
extract)
Solid (Acid
extract)
Solid (2:1
Soil/Water
extract)
Solid (Acid
extract)
Solid (Acid
extract)
Solid (Acid
extract)
Residential 3750 75 1000 350 0 0 450 1000 130 4.2 170
Commercial 665000 3160 1000 13000 0 0 750 1000 18000 62 3600
SPRTP14 0.8 75.8 <10 <1.0 4.9 <1.0 9.6 <10 27.9 <1.0
SPRTP14 2.5 72 <10 <1.0 6.3 <1.0 3.9 <10 30.7 <1.0
SPRTP15 0.9 74.9 <10 <1.0 5.4 <1.0 5.3 <10 36 <1.0
SPRTP16 0.7 49.8 <10 <1.0 5.5 <1.0 5.1 <10 20.5 <1.0
SPRTP16 1.8 80.1 <10 <1.0 6.3 <1.0 2.1 <10 38.4 <1.0
SPRTP17 1 67.2 <10 <1.0 6.5 <1.0 6.2 <10 23.1 <1.0
SPRTP18 0.6 45.5 <10 <1.0 4.5 <1.0 <0.5 <10 21.1 <1.0
SPRTP18 1.6 68.4 <10 <1.0 5 <1.0 4.1 <10 33.3 <1.0
SPRTP19 0.9 89.7 <10 <1.0 6.7 <1.0 4.6 <10 40.9 <1.0
SPRTP19 3.2 78 <10 <1.0 5.8 <1.0 6.5 <10 48.2 <1.0
SPRTP20 2 82.9 <10 <1.0 5.8 <1.0 8.8 <10 40.9 <1.0
SPRTP21 0.7 59.2 <10 <1.0 5.9 <1.0 8.9 <10 21 <1.0
SPRTP22 0.7 84 <10 <1.0 5.8 <1.0 31.5 <10 23.8 <1.0
SPRTP22 1.9 79.5 <10 <1.0 5.7 <1.0 13.7 <10 31.2 <1.0
SPRTP23 0.8 80.4 <10 <1.0 5.9 <1.0 1.9 <10 31.4 <1.0
SPRTP24 0.7 105.7 <10 <1.0 5.9 <1.0 <0.5 <10 31 <1.0
SPRTP25 0.8 61.1 <10 <1.0 6.6 <1.0 7.8 <10 17.7 <1.0
SPRTP25 1.9 81.7 <10 <1.0 5.8 <1.0 12.4 <10 37.8 <1.0
SPRTP26 0.6 75.8 <10 <1.0 7 <1.0 4.7 <10 35.5 <1.0
SPRTP26 1.7 65.2 <10 <1.0 6.3 <1.0 8.2 <10 31.4 <1.0
SPRTP27 0.9 93.2 <10 <1.0 6 <1.0 9.2 <10 51.3 <1.0
SPRTP27 2.1 57.9 <10 <1.0 6 <1.0 5.6 <10 32.5 <1.0
SPRTP28 0.6 60.9 <10 <1.0 5.6 <1.0 2.7 <10 24.9 <1.0
SPRTP28 1.7 73.4 <10 <1.0 5.9 <1.0 0.9 <10 32.7 <1.0
SPRTP29 0.9 82.1 <10 <1.0 6.2 <1.0 3.1 <10 34.5 <1.0
SPRTP29 2.4 74.2 <10 <1.0 6.1 <1.0 <0.5 <10 34.5 <1.0
SPRTP30 0.5 73.8 <10 <1.0 6.6 <1.0 <0.5 <10 19 <1.0
SPRBH1 0.7 84.7 <10 <1.0 6 <1.0 <0.5 <10 42.9 <1.0
SPRBH2 0.6 75.2 <10 <1.0 6.3 <1.0 1 <10 30.2 <1.0
SPRBH4 1 79 <10 <1.0 6.3 <1.0 14.5 <10 29.2 <1.0
SPRBH5 1 65.8 <10 <1.0 7.2 <1.0 1.1 <10 29.8 <1.0
SPRBH6 1 85.5 <10 <1.0 6.9 <1.0 4.1 <10 35.1 <1.0
SPRBH7 1 79.2 <10 <1.0 6.2 <1.0 2.3 <10 36.5 <1.0
SPRBH8 0.5 84.1 <10 <1.0 6.8 <1.0 2.5 <10 35.1 <1.0
SPRBH9 1 75.9 <10 <1.0 5 <1.0 2.1 <10 32.2 <1.0
SPRBH10 1.5 92.3 <10 <1.0 6.9 <1.0 14.4 <10 34.8 <1.0
SPRBH11 1 80.4 <10 <1.0 7.7 <1.0 0.9 <10 34.9 <1.0
SPRBH12 1.5 50.3 <10 <1.0 5.8 <1.0 3.7 <10 20.6 <1.0
SPRBH14 0.7 63.6 <10 <1.0 6 <1.0 1.1 <10 26.4 <1.0
SPRBH15 1 81.9 <10 <1.0 7.2 <1.0 8.4 <10 24.1 <1.0
SPRBH3 1 116.8 <10 <1.0 6.4 <1.0 65.8 <10 53.4 <1.0
SPRBH13 1 66.2 <10 <1.0 7.2 <1.0 16.3 <10 30.8 <1.0
HSBH3 1 17.8 7.5 14.1 <0.1 19 <1.0
HSBH3 3.25 47.5 6.5 8.8 <0.1 35.2 <1.0
HSBH6 1 73.8 8.1 67.2 <0.1 33.4 <1.0
HSBH7 1 45.6 6.6 56.9 <0.1 37.8 <1.0
South Line Soil Test Results LQM
Project ID Zinc Vanadium
Total
petroleum
hydrocarbons Thiocyanate Selenium pH
Phenol
(Total) Lead Total PCB PAH total Nickel
Indeno (1,2,3 -
cd) pyrene Mercury
Solid (Acid
extract)
Solid (Acid
extract)
Solid (Acid
extract)
Solid (2:1
Soil/Water
extract)
Solid (Acid
extract)
Solid (Acid
extract)
Solid (Acid
extract)
Residential 3750 75 1000 350 0 0 450 1000 130 4.2 170
Commercial 665000 3160 1000 13000 0 0 750 1000 18000 62 3600
HSBH7 4 59 7.4 18.3 <0.1 38.3 <1.0
HSBH10 0.5 71.7 7.3 26.2 <0.1 12.3 <1.0
HSBH12 0.5 246.8 7.8 90 <0.1 21.9 <1.0
HSTP1 0.65 56 5.9 81.6 <0.1 17.2 <1.0
HSTP3 0.75 39.5 5.2 71.6 <0.1 18.1 <1.0
HSTP5 0.65 806.5 6.4 225.1 <0.1 76.7 <1.0
HSTP7 0.4 259 6.9 186.8 <0.1 87.8 <1.0
HSTP9 0.15 79.6 7.5 65.3 <0.1 20 <1.0
HSBH8 1 114.8 7.8 31.1 <0.1 32.1 <1.0
HSBH8 1.75 43.3 7.6 3.1 <0.1 41.3 <1.0
South Line Soil Test Results
Project ID
Residential
Commercial
Hole ID Depth
TPS42 3.5
TPS43 2.5
TPS44 1
TPS73 1.5
TPS74 0.3
WSS38 0.5
WSS40 1
WSS45 1
WSS48 0.5
WSS49 0.5
WSS55A 3.05
WSS63 1
CRS60 1
SPRTP01 1.6
SPRTP01 2.5
SPRTP02 0.9
SPRTP02 1.9
SPRTP02 2.5
SPRTP03 0.6
SPRTP04 0.8
SPRTP04 1.7
SPRTP05 0.8
SPRTP05 1.8
SPRTP06 0.9
SPRTP06 1.8
SPRTP07 0.6
SPRTP07 1.8
SPRTP08 0.8
SPRTP08 2.9
SPRTP09 1.5
SPRTP09 2.8
SPRTP10 0.8
SPRTP10 2
SPRTP11 0.7
SPRTP12 0.6
SPRTP13 0.6
SPRTP13 1.7
Fluoranthene Fluorene Iron
Dibenzo (ah)
anthracene Copper total Cyanide Free Cyanide
Complex
Cyanide Chrysene Chromium Chromium Cadmium
TPH aromatic
>C21-C35
Solid (Acid
extract)
Solid (Acid
extract)
Solid (Acid
extract) Hexavalent
Solid (Acid
extract)
670 780 0 0.9 1 9.3 3000 4.3 10 1230
23000 71000 0 13 71700 140 30400 35 230 28000
0.4 <0.1 17000 <0.1 19 <0.1 25 0.93
0.2 <0.1 17000 <0.1 21 <0.1 11 0.43
0.1 <0.1 20000 <0.1 66 <0.1 18 0.49
19 0.2 15000 3.1 37 11 15 0.13 210
6.1 0.2 19000 0.1 75 2.3 28 0.35 37
6.8 0.2 7600 0.7 18 4.4 73 0.91 400
3.1 <0.1 15000 <0.1 52 1.3 18 0.57
1.8 0.2 22000 <0.1 17 0.5 25 0.31
220 59 25000 22 390 110 43 0.3 500
29 5.5 20000 1.7 130 15 23 <0.1 290
27 6.2 5.4 14
480 330 15000 4.7 5.4 100 18 <0.1 530
26000 250 52 <0.1 250
1.5 0.1 13000 <0.1 36 1.8 21 0.35 200
9.8 <2 <2 <2 11.2 <1.0 <0.2
9.9 <2 <2 <2 14.8 <1.0 <0.2
18.9 <2 <2 <2 19.4 <1.0 <0.2
7 <2 <2 <2 15.6 <1.0 <0.2
13 <2 <2 <2 19.5 <1.0 <0.2
28.2 <2 <2 <2 8.9 <1.0 <0.2
15.8 <2 <2 <2 17 <1.0 <0.2
25 <2 <2 <2 5 <1.0 <0.2
23.1 <2 <2 <2 16.6 <1.0 <0.2
28.6 <2 <2 <2 15.6 <1.0 <0.2
27.4 <2 <2 <2 21.2 <1.0 <0.2
23.3 <2 <2 <2 18.5 <1.0 <0.2
20.9 <2 <2 <2 20.6 <1.0 <0.2
25.3 <2 <2 <2 18.1 <1.0 <0.2
28.6 <2 <2 <2 20.1 <1.0 <0.2
21.3 <2 <2 <2 17 <1.0 <0.2
24.7 <2 <2 <2 17.1 <1.0 <0.2
26.7 <2 <2 <2 16.9 <1.0 <0.2
27.8 <2 <2 <2 28.5 <1.0 <0.2
38.4 <2 <2 <2 32.6 <1.0 <0.2
31.9 <2 <2 <2 27.9 <1.0 <0.2
22 <2 <2 <2 23.4 <1.0 <0.2
28.5 <2 <2 <2 27 <1.0 <0.2
27.3 <2 <2 <2 23.7 <1.0 <0.2
South Line Soil Test Results
Project ID
Residential
Commercial
SPRTP14 0.8
SPRTP14 2.5
SPRTP15 0.9
SPRTP16 0.7
SPRTP16 1.8
SPRTP17 1
SPRTP18 0.6
SPRTP18 1.6
SPRTP19 0.9
SPRTP19 3.2
SPRTP20 2
SPRTP21 0.7
SPRTP22 0.7
SPRTP22 1.9
SPRTP23 0.8
SPRTP24 0.7
SPRTP25 0.8
SPRTP25 1.9
SPRTP26 0.6
SPRTP26 1.7
SPRTP27 0.9
SPRTP27 2.1
SPRTP28 0.6
SPRTP28 1.7
SPRTP29 0.9
SPRTP29 2.4
SPRTP30 0.5
SPRBH1 0.7
SPRBH2 0.6
SPRBH4 1
SPRBH5 1
SPRBH6 1
SPRBH7 1
SPRBH8 0.5
SPRBH9 1
SPRBH10 1.5
SPRBH11 1
SPRBH12 1.5
SPRBH14 0.7
SPRBH15 1
SPRBH3 1
SPRBH13 1
HSBH3 1
HSBH3 3.25
HSBH6 1
HSBH7 1
Fluoranthene Fluorene Iron
Dibenzo (ah)
anthracene Copper total Cyanide Free Cyanide
Complex
Cyanide Chrysene Chromium Chromium Cadmium
TPH aromatic
>C21-C35
Solid (Acid
extract)
Solid (Acid
extract)
Solid (Acid
extract) Hexavalent
Solid (Acid
extract)
670 780 0 0.9 1 9.3 3000 4.3 10 1230
23000 71000 0 13 71700 140 30400 35 230 28000
33.7 <2 <2 <2 20.5 <1.0 <0.2
23 <2 <2 <2 19 <1.0 <0.2
28 <2 <2 <2 21.5 <1.0 <0.2
24.6 <2 <2 <2 18.2 <1.0 <0.2
35.7 <2 <2 <2 25.4 <1.0 <0.2
25.7 <2 <2 <2 27.4 <1.0 <0.2
25.7 <2 <2 <2 27.4 <1.0 <0.2
22 <2 <2 <2 15.3 <1.0 <0.2
33.7 <2 <2 <2 24.6 <1.0 <0.2
29.6 <2 <2 <2 24.1 <1.0 <0.2
29.9 <2 <2 <2 20.4 <1.0 <0.2
11.9 <2 <2 <2 15.3 <1.0 <0.2
24.5 <2 <2 <2 22.7 <1.0 <0.2
27.6 <2 <2 <2 21.7 <1.0 <0.2
28 <2 <2 <2 26.1 <1.0 <0.2
26.9 <2 <2 <2 24.1 <1.0 <0.2
17 <2 <2 <2 23.9 <1.0 <0.2
31.4 <2 <2 <2 25.3 <1.0 <0.2
24.4 <2 <2 <2 20.8 <1.0 <0.2
20.4 <2 <2 <2 18.5 <1.0 <0.2
47.7 <2 <2 <2 34.2 <1.0 <0.2
27.1 <2 <2 <2 17 <1.0 <0.2
25.8 <2 <2 <2 26.7 <1.0 <0.2
24.4 <2 <2 <2 23.7 <1.0 <0.2
25.3 <2 <2 <2 28 <1.0 <0.2
26.5 <2 <2 <2 25.4 <1.0 <0.2
12.7 <2 <2 <2 37.6 <1.0 <0.2
25.4 <2 <2 <2 25.7 <1.0 <0.2
13.1 <2 <2 <2 26 <1.0 <0.2
27.5 <2 <2 <2 30.1 <1.0 <0.2
16.7 <2 <2 <2 20.1 <1.0 <0.2
26.4 <2 <2 <2 25.9 <1.0 <0.2
26.7 <2 <2 <2 25.9 <1.0 <0.2
24.7 <2 <2 <2 25.3 <1.0 <0.2
24.7 <2 <2 <2 28.1 <1.0 <0.2
31.3 <2 <2 <2 30.8 <1.0 <0.2
30 <2 <2 <2 26.1 <1.0 <0.2
11.5 <2 <2 <2 13.5 <1.0 <0.2
20.3 <2 <2 <2 26.8 <1.0 <0.2
22.4 <2 <2 <2 29.8 <1.0 <0.2
34.6 <2 <2 <2 25.5 <1.0 <0.2
28.8 <2 <2 <2 20.8 <1.0 <0.2
14.2 <2 20.1 <0.2
19.4 <2 28 <0.2
74.2 <2 28.4 <0.2
52.2 <2 30.9 <0.2
South Line Soil Test Results
Project ID
Residential
Commercial
HSBH7 4
HSBH10 0.5
HSBH12 0.5
HSTP1 0.65
HSTP3 0.75
HSTP5 0.65
HSTP7 0.4
HSTP9 0.15
HSBH8 1
HSBH8 1.75
Fluoranthene Fluorene Iron
Dibenzo (ah)
anthracene Copper total Cyanide Free Cyanide
Complex
Cyanide Chrysene Chromium Chromium Cadmium
TPH aromatic
>C21-C35
Solid (Acid
extract)
Solid (Acid
extract)
Solid (Acid
extract) Hexavalent
Solid (Acid
extract)
670 780 0 0.9 1 9.3 3000 4.3 10 1230
23000 71000 0 13 71700 140 30400 35 230 28000
37.8 <2 34.4 <0.2
26.3 <2 15.6 <0.2
67.5 <2 22.5 <0.2
41.1 <2 22 <0.2
42.6 <2 20.9 <0.2
304.1 <2 69.4 <0.2
327.36 <2 37.1 <0.2
47 <2 17.8 <0.2
84 <2 28.9 <0.2
22.6 <2 24.2 <0.2
South Line Soil Test Results
Project ID
Residential
Commercial
Hole ID Depth
TPS42 3.5
TPS43 2.5
TPS44 1
TPS73 1.5
TPS74 0.3
WSS38 0.5
WSS40 1
WSS45 1
WSS48 0.5
WSS49 0.5
WSS55A 3.05
WSS63 1
CRS60 1
SPRTP01 1.6
SPRTP01 2.5
SPRTP02 0.9
SPRTP02 1.9
SPRTP02 2.5
SPRTP03 0.6
SPRTP04 0.8
SPRTP04 1.7
SPRTP05 0.8
SPRTP05 1.8
SPRTP06 0.9
SPRTP06 1.8
SPRTP07 0.6
SPRTP07 1.8
SPRTP08 0.8
SPRTP08 2.9
SPRTP09 1.5
SPRTP09 2.8
SPRTP10 0.8
SPRTP10 2
SPRTP11 0.7
SPRTP12 0.6
SPRTP13 0.6
SPRTP13 1.7
TPH aliphatic
>C21-C35
TPH aromatic
>C16-C21
TPH aliphatic
>C16-C21
TPH aromatic
>C12-C16
TPH aliphatic
>C12-C16
TPH aromatic
>C10-C12
TPH aliphatic
>C10-C12
TPH aromatic
>C8-C10
TPH aliphatic
>C8-C10
TPH aromatic
>C7-C8
TPH aliphatic
>C6-C8
TPH aromatic
>C5-C7
TPH aliphatic
>C5-C6
76000 770 76000 593 3000 346 540 151 110 0 0 0 0
1800000 28000 1800000 37800 91000 34500 49000 18000 12000 0 0 0 0
<0.1 63 <0.1 5.7 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
<0.1 15 <0.1 1.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
2000 110 45 1.8 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
<0.1 430 <0.1 130 <0.1 23 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
<0.1 220 <0.1 6.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
39 2900 83 2500 140 310 23 3.8 3.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
<0.1 240 <0.1 79 <0.1 20 <0.1 1.8 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
1000 91 51 3.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
South Line Soil Test Results
Project ID
Residential
Commercial
SPRTP14 0.8
SPRTP14 2.5
SPRTP15 0.9
SPRTP16 0.7
SPRTP16 1.8
SPRTP17 1
SPRTP18 0.6
SPRTP18 1.6
SPRTP19 0.9
SPRTP19 3.2
SPRTP20 2
SPRTP21 0.7
SPRTP22 0.7
SPRTP22 1.9
SPRTP23 0.8
SPRTP24 0.7
SPRTP25 0.8
SPRTP25 1.9
SPRTP26 0.6
SPRTP26 1.7
SPRTP27 0.9
SPRTP27 2.1
SPRTP28 0.6
SPRTP28 1.7
SPRTP29 0.9
SPRTP29 2.4
SPRTP30 0.5
SPRBH1 0.7
SPRBH2 0.6
SPRBH4 1
SPRBH5 1
SPRBH6 1
SPRBH7 1
SPRBH8 0.5
SPRBH9 1
SPRBH10 1.5
SPRBH11 1
SPRBH12 1.5
SPRBH14 0.7
SPRBH15 1
SPRBH3 1
SPRBH13 1
HSBH3 1
HSBH3 3.25
HSBH6 1
HSBH7 1
TPH aliphatic
>C21-C35
TPH aromatic
>C16-C21
TPH aliphatic
>C16-C21
TPH aromatic
>C12-C16
TPH aliphatic
>C12-C16
TPH aromatic
>C10-C12
TPH aliphatic
>C10-C12
TPH aromatic
>C8-C10
TPH aliphatic
>C8-C10
TPH aromatic
>C7-C8
TPH aliphatic
>C6-C8
TPH aromatic
>C5-C7
TPH aliphatic
>C5-C6
76000 770 76000 593 3000 346 540 151 110 0 0 0 0
1800000 28000 1800000 37800 91000 34500 49000 18000 12000 0 0 0 0
South Line Soil Test Results
Project ID
Residential
Commercial
HSBH7 4
HSBH10 0.5
HSBH12 0.5
HSTP1 0.65
HSTP3 0.75
HSTP5 0.65
HSTP7 0.4
HSTP9 0.15
HSBH8 1
HSBH8 1.75
TPH aliphatic
>C21-C35
TPH aromatic
>C16-C21
TPH aliphatic
>C16-C21
TPH aromatic
>C12-C16
TPH aliphatic
>C12-C16
TPH aromatic
>C10-C12
TPH aliphatic
>C10-C12
TPH aromatic
>C8-C10
TPH aliphatic
>C8-C10
TPH aromatic
>C7-C8
TPH aliphatic
>C6-C8
TPH aromatic
>C5-C7
TPH aliphatic
>C5-C6
76000 770 76000 593 3000 346 540 151 110 0 0 0 0
1800000 28000 1800000 37800 91000 34500 49000 18000 12000 0 0 0 0
South Line Soil Test Results
Project ID
Residential
Commercial
Hole ID Depth
TPS42 3.5
TPS43 2.5
TPS44 1
TPS73 1.5
TPS74 0.3
WSS38 0.5
WSS40 1
WSS45 1
WSS48 0.5
WSS49 0.5
WSS55A 3.05
WSS63 1
CRS60 1
SPRTP01 1.6
SPRTP01 2.5
SPRTP02 0.9
SPRTP02 1.9
SPRTP02 2.5
SPRTP03 0.6
SPRTP04 0.8
SPRTP04 1.7
SPRTP05 0.8
SPRTP05 1.8
SPRTP06 0.9
SPRTP06 1.8
SPRTP07 0.6
SPRTP07 1.8
SPRTP08 0.8
SPRTP08 2.9
SPRTP09 1.5
SPRTP09 2.8
SPRTP10 0.8
SPRTP10 2
SPRTP11 0.7
SPRTP12 0.6
SPRTP13 0.6
SPRTP13 1.7
CL:AIRE
Benzo (k)
fluoranthene
Benzo (ghi)
perylene
Benzo (b)
fluoranthene
Benzo (a)
pyrene Beryllium Barium Boron Arsenic Anthanthrene Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene
Solid (Acid
extract)
Solid (Acid
extract)
Solid (2:1
Soil/Water
extract)
Solid (Acid
extract)
10 47 10 1 51 1300 291 32 9200 1000 850
140 660 140 14 420 22000 192000 120 540000 100000 100000
<0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <1 150 3.1 5.7 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <1 74 1 3.7 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1.7 180 1.3 94 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
5.3 11 19 12 <1 74 0.9 11 1.3 0.4 0.1
1 1.5 4.3 3.2 1.5 210 1.5 41 0.8 0.3 <0.1
1.7 5.9 8.6 4.2 1.7 250 0.8 11 1.1 0.2 0.2
0.4 0.5 1.8 1.6 1.2 330 2.2 17 0.3 <0.1 <0.1
0.2 0.1 0.9 0.7 <1 58 0.8 11 0.3 0.1 0.1
52 60 120 110 5 330 0.8 130 92 61 8.7
5.2 7 18 17 3.9 170 1.2 32 7.5 2.5 2.1
5.6 5.5 10 13 8.7 3.4 2.1
18 16 56 120 <1 32 1 5.3 320 410 8.6
1.4 420 <0.4 59
0.7 1 2.9 2.4 <1 140 0.9 15 0.6 <0.1 <0.1
<0.5 72.9
<0.5 36
<0.5 4
<0.5 <1
<0.5 19.5
<0.5 5.5
<0.5 1
<0.5 5
<0.5 3.7
<0.5 20.1
<0.5 9.7
<0.5 <1
<0.5 <1
<0.5 2.5
0.6 4
<0.5 1.1
<0.5 1.6
<0.5 2.2
<0.5 3.7
<0.5 3.7
<0.5 1.6
<0.5 2.4
<0.5 <1.0
<0.5 <1.0
South Line Soil Test Results
Project ID
Residential
Commercial
SPRTP14 0.8
SPRTP14 2.5
SPRTP15 0.9
SPRTP16 0.7
SPRTP16 1.8
SPRTP17 1
SPRTP18 0.6
SPRTP18 1.6
SPRTP19 0.9
SPRTP19 3.2
SPRTP20 2
SPRTP21 0.7
SPRTP22 0.7
SPRTP22 1.9
SPRTP23 0.8
SPRTP24 0.7
SPRTP25 0.8
SPRTP25 1.9
SPRTP26 0.6
SPRTP26 1.7
SPRTP27 0.9
SPRTP27 2.1
SPRTP28 0.6
SPRTP28 1.7
SPRTP29 0.9
SPRTP29 2.4
SPRTP30 0.5
SPRBH1 0.7
SPRBH2 0.6
SPRBH4 1
SPRBH5 1
SPRBH6 1
SPRBH7 1
SPRBH8 0.5
SPRBH9 1
SPRBH10 1.5
SPRBH11 1
SPRBH12 1.5
SPRBH14 0.7
SPRBH15 1
SPRBH3 1
SPRBH13 1
HSBH3 1
HSBH3 3.25
HSBH6 1
HSBH7 1
CL:AIRE
Benzo (k)
fluoranthene
Benzo (ghi)
perylene
Benzo (b)
fluoranthene
Benzo (a)
pyrene Beryllium Barium Boron Arsenic Anthanthrene Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene
Solid (Acid
extract)
Solid (Acid
extract)
Solid (2:1
Soil/Water
extract)
Solid (Acid
extract)
10 47 10 1 51 1300 291 32 9200 1000 850
140 660 140 14 420 22000 192000 120 540000 100000 100000
<0.5 10.5
<0.5 2.8
1.6 7.1
<0.5 2.7
<0.5 1.9
<0.5 9.5
<0.5 9.2
<0.5 5.1
<0.5 12.6
<0.5 6
<0.5 3.1
<0.5 1.6
0.6 6.8
<0.5 4.8
<0.5 <1
<0.5 <1
<0.5 3.4
<0.5 5.4
<0.5 1.8
<0.5 8.2
0.6 8.1
<0.5 4.2
<0.5 3.4
<0.5 2.7
<0.5 1.6
<0.5 2
0.5 2.6
<0.5 5.4
<0.5 1.3
<0.5 7
<0.5 <1
<0.5 <1
<0.5 4.4
<0.5 2
<0.5 3
<0.5 5.2
<0.5 2
<0.5 1.5
<0.5 <1
<0.5 5.3
<0.5 <1
<0.5 2.2
<0.5 <1
<0.5 <1
<0.5 35.3
<0.5 6.4
South Line Soil Test Results
Project ID
Residential
Commercial
HSBH7 4
HSBH10 0.5
HSBH12 0.5
HSTP1 0.65
HSTP3 0.75
HSTP5 0.65
HSTP7 0.4
HSTP9 0.15
HSBH8 1
HSBH8 1.75
CL:AIRE
Benzo (k)
fluoranthene
Benzo (ghi)
perylene
Benzo (b)
fluoranthene
Benzo (a)
pyrene Beryllium Barium Boron Arsenic Anthanthrene Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene
Solid (Acid
extract)
Solid (Acid
extract)
Solid (2:1
Soil/Water
extract)
Solid (Acid
extract)
10 47 10 1 51 1300 291 32 9200 1000 850
140 660 140 14 420 22000 192000 120 540000 100000 100000
<0.5 3.9
<0.5 6.4
<0.5 11.5
0.8 14.1
1.2 11.8
<0.5 65.7
<0.5 35.7
<0.5 3.5
<0.5 17.1
<0.5 <1
South Line Leachate test Results
Project ID Zinc Sulphate as SO4 Selenium pH Lead Nickel Mercury Copper Chromium Cadmium Arsenic
Leeds New Generation Transport (NGT)Leachate Leachate Leachate Leachate Leachate Leachate Leachate Leachate Leachate Leachate Leachate
8 400000 10 6 4 50 0 1 5 5 50
50 400000 10 9 20 200 0 28 50 5 50
Hole ID Depth µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l
WSS38 2 4.2 77 3 11 1.6 1.7 <0.5 2.5 16 <0.08 1.6
WSS40 1.55 <1 19 1.4 9.8 <1 1.2 <0.5 3.4 5.3 <0.08 9
WSS47 0.5 1.8 25 2.3 9.9 2.8 <1 <0.5 140 13 <0.08 8
WSS55A 4 4.6 12 <1 7.1 <1 <1 <0.5 1.4 <1 <0.08 <1
EQS or
DWQS
Waste Acceptance Criteria Tests
Project ID Zinc TPH Total WAC Toluene Sulphate as SO4 Selenium Antimony Pyrene Phenanthrene pH Phenol Index Phenol Index Polychlorinated biphenyls PCB52
Leeds New Generation Transport (NGT) mg/kg mg/kg ug/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
Inert 4 500 1000 0.1 0.06 6
Non-haz 50 500 20000 0.5 0.7 >6
Hazardous 200 50000 7 5
Hole ID Depth
CRS71 0.5 <0.5 130 <1 71.3 <0.01 0.02 8.5 7.2 7.9 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.1
CRS72 1 <0.5 <10 <1 125 <0.01 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1 7.4 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.1
TPS73 0.5 <0.5 180 <1 108 <0.01 0.01 20 3.5 8.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.1
TPS75 0.5 <0.5 44 <1 66.2 0.01 0.01 2.1 1.8 8.3 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.1
RO76 1 <0.5 63 <1 356 <0.01 <0.01 1 1 6.7 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.1
RO77 0.5 <0.5 <10 <1 192 <0.01 <0.01 0.4 0.4 6.9 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.1
RO78 0.5 <0.5 <10 <1 206 <0.01 <0.01 0.2 0.3 5.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.1
WSS41 0.5 <0.5 160 <1 176 <0.01 <0.01 2.1 2.3 7.7 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.1
TPS42 1.5 <0.5 360 <1 525 <0.01 0.01 1.3 0.9 11.3 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.1
TPS43 0.5 <0.5 390 <1 784 <0.01 0.03 42 45 9.3 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.1
TPS44 0.5 <0.5 110 <1 251 <0.01 <0.01 0.4 0.4 10.4 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.1
WSS38 1 <0.5 890 <1 783 0.02 0.03 11 8.3 10.7 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.1
WSS39 0.5 <0.5 68 <1 204 0.03 <0.01 1.5 1.3 8 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.1
WSS40 0.5 <0.5 69 <1 731 0.01 0.01 6.7 8.1 10.9 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.1
WSS46 0.5 <0.5 100 2.5 1160 <0.01 <0.01 9.7 12 8 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.1
WSS47 0.5 <0.5 2000 1.1 520 0.02 0.07 120 150 9.4 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.1
WSS49 0.5 <0.5 360 3.6 176 0.02 <0.01 27 34 8.3 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.1
WSS50 0.5 <0.5 380 <1 154 <0.01 <0.01 20 19 8.4 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.1
WSS54 2.22 <0.5 <10 <1 141 0.01 <0.01 0.9 1.4 8.6 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.1
WSS56 1 <0.5 2600 5.6 3220 0.02 <0.01 120 79 8.4 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.1
PCB28 PCB180 PCB153 PCB138 PCB118 PCB101 Lead Total (of 17) PAHs o - Xylene Total organic carbon Nickel Naphthalene m & p - Xylene
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg ug/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg ug/kg
Inert 100 3 0
Non-haz 100 5 0
Hazardous 6
Hole ID Depth
CRS71 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 59 <1 7.4 <0.05 1.5 <1
CRS72 1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <2 <1 0.61 <0.05 <0.1 <1
TPS73 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 140 <1 0.89 <0.05 0.3 <1
TPS75 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 22 <1 7.8 <0.05 1.2 <1
RO76 1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 8.8 <1 3.8 <0.05 0.6 <1
RO77 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 3.4 <1 1.4 <0.05 0.2 <1
RO78 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 2.7 <1 1.6 <0.05 0.2 <1
WSS41 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 26 <1 21 <0.05 5.1 <1
TPS42 1.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 9.7 <1 9.8 <0.05 0.2 <1
TPS43 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 280 <1 7 <0.05 3.9 <1
TPS44 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 5.1 <1 0.62 <0.05 <0.1 <1
WSS38 1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 75 <1 2.7 <0.05 1.5 <1
WSS39 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 12 <1 5.1 <0.05 0.5 <1
WSS40 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 51 <1 3 <0.05 1.8 <1
WSS46 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 70 <1 5.1 <0.05 2.1 <1
WSS47 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 940 <1 7.2 <0.05 29 4.4
WSS49 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 180 3 9 <0.05 6.1 4.3
WSS50 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 120 <1 3.9 <0.05 2.2 <1
WSS54 2.22 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 8.7 <1 5.2 <0.05 1.2 <1
WSS56 1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 820 17 10 <0.05 10 23
Moisture content Molybdenum Indeno (1,2,3 - cd) pyrene Indeno (1,2,3 - cd) pyrene Loss on ignition Mercury Mercury Fluoride Fluoranthene Fluorene Ethylbenzene Dissolved organic carbon Dissolved organic carbon
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg ug/kg mg/kg mg/kg
Inert 0.5 10 10
Non-haz 10 10 150
Hazardous 30 10 500
Hole ID Depth
CRS71 0.5 14.4 0.06 0.5 13.2 <0.005 <0.005 10.1 9.8 0.7 <1 66 172
CRS72 1 15.1 <0.05 <0.1 4.66 <0.005 <0.005 1 <0.1 <0.1 <1 <50 173
TPS73 0.5 10.4 0.1 3 3.48 <0.005 <0.005 16.1 18 0.3 <1 <50 138
TPS75 0.5 15.3 0.05 1 12.8 <0.005 0.01 11.4 2.3 0.1 <1 <50 150
RO76 1 16.8 <0.05 <0.1 8.13 <0.005 <0.005 1.97 1 0.4 <1 <50 86.8
RO77 0.5 20 <0.05 <0.1 5.6 <0.005 <0.005 1.19 0.6 0.2 <1 <50 62.8
RO78 0.5 19.3 <0.05 <0.1 7.45 <0.005 <0.005 1.28 0.3 0.4 <1 <50 59.8
WSS41 0.5 20.1 0.1 0.3 22.4 <0.005 <0.005 8.98 2.2 2.3 <1 <50 103
TPS42 1.5 8.8 2.74 0.2 8.25 <0.005 <0.005 30.1 1.5 0.1 <1 <50 138
TPS43 0.5 17.3 0.42 1.3 8.79 <0.005 <0.005 9.49 49 7.4 <1 <50 153
TPS44 0.5 11.2 0.06 <0.1 2.92 <0.005 <0.005 4.61 0.4 <0.1 <1 50 165
WSS38 1 11.5 0.1 1.5 6.4 <0.005 <0.005 3.66 11 0.8 <1 56 134
WSS39 0.5 18.8 0.19 <0.1 9.06 <0.005 <0.005 14.2 1.5 0.3 <1 <50 114
WSS40 0.5 14.6 0.12 0.7 7.24 <0.005 <0.005 4.56 7.8 1 <1 <50 77.2
WSS46 0.5 5.55 <0.05 0.8 5.41 <0.005 <0.005 4.71 12 1.5 <1 79.9 137
WSS47 0.5 12.3 0.25 14 4 11.9 <0.005 <0.005 <1 140 29 <1 86 184
WSS49 0.5 13.1 0.22 5.8 13.6 <0.005 <0.005 13.8 29 5.5 <1 <50 73.3
WSS50 0.5 6.39 <0.05 1.4 6.07 <0.005 <0.005 10.8 23 2.8 <1 100 188
WSS54 2.22 6.41 <0.05 <0.1 8.45 <0.005 <0.005 10.1 1 0.3 <1 104 156
WSS56 1 5.33 <0.05 7.3 10.2 <0.005 <0.005 16.4 130 10 5.4 116 197
Total dissolved solids Total dissolved solids Dibenzo (ah) anthracene Copper Copper Chrysene Chromium Coronene Chloride Chloride Cadmium Total BTEX Benzene
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg ug/kg
Inert 4000 2 0.5 800 0.04
Non-haz 60000 50 10 15000 1
Hazardous 100000 100 70 25000 5
Hole ID Depth
CRS71 0.5 480 1560 2.7 0.05 0.07 5.7 <0.05 <0.1 14.6 13.3 <0.01 <0.005 <1
CRS72 1 116 240 <0.1 <0.05 <0.05 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 16.6 49 <0.01 <0.005 <1
TPS73 0.5 280 792 11 <0.05 <0.05 14 <0.05 <0.1 7 15 <0.01 <0.005 <1
TPS75 0.5 360 1170 2.3 <0.05 <0.05 1.9 <0.05 <0.1 15.6 24.5 <0.01 <0.005 <1
RO76 1 401 642 0.4 <0.05 <0.05 0.5 <0.05 <0.1 9.41 14.7 <0.01 <0.005 <1
RO77 0.5 240 460 0.2 <0.05 <0.05 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 12.4 13.3 <0.01 <0.005 <1
RO78 0.5 260 500 <0.1 <0.05 <0.05 0.1 <0.05 <0.1 38.1 45.9 <0.01 <0.005 <1
WSS41 0.5 400 1210 0.6 <0.05 0.06 1.4 <0.05 <0.1 6.41 9.59 <0.01 <0.005 <1
TPS42 1.5 560 1270 0.4 <0.05 <0.05 1.1 0.06 <0.1 20 36.7 <0.01 <0.005 <1
TPS43 0.5 839 1630 9.2 <0.05 0.06 23 0.14 <0.1 36 52.4 <0.01 <0.005 <1
TPS44 0.5 340 1160 0.7 0.11 0.24 0.4 0.18 <0.1 16.2 19 <0.01 <0.005 <1
WSS38 1 1100 3610 3.8 <0.05 0.06 7.9 0.22 <0.1 106 123 <0.01 <0.005 <1
WSS39 0.5 460 1030 0.4 <0.05 <0.05 1 <0.05 <0.1 90 105 <0.01 <0.005 <1
WSS40 0.5 820 1850 1.7 <0.05 <0.05 4.7 0.08 <0.1 74 112 <0.01 <0.005 <1
WSS46 0.5 1220 2460 2.5 <0.05 <0.05 6.7 <0.05 <0.1 26 31.8 <0.01 <0.005 1.2
WSS47 0.5 1980 4250 34 4.2 10.9 82 0.24 <0.1 152 244 <0.01 <0.005 <1
WSS49 0.5 581 1520 1.7 <0.05 0.1 15 <0.05 <0.1 16.2 17.7 <0.01 0.011 1.5
WSS50 0.5 360 1020 2.4 <0.05 <0.05 12 <0.05 <0.1 10.8 24.6 <0.01 <0.005 <1
WSS54 2.22 421 1080 0.3 <0.05 <0.05 0.7 <0.05 <0.1 10 26.7 <0.01 <0.005 <1
WSS56 1 2800 4390 53 <0.05 <0.05 72 <0.05 <0.1 30 34.3 <0.01 0.048 <1
Benzo (k) fluoranthene Benzo (ghi) perylene Benzo (b) fluoranthene Benzo (a) pyrene Barium Barium Arsenic Anthanthrene Acid Neutralisation Capacity Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
Inert 0 20 0.5
Non-haz 0 100 2
Hazardous
Hole ID Depth
CRS71 0.5 3.2 2.4 4.4 4.9 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 1.7 0.004 0.8 0.3
CRS72 1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 <0.1 <0.002 <0.1 <0.1
TPS73 0.5 12 11 15 11 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 1.5 0.007 0.7 0.3
TPS75 0.5 1.5 1 1.6 1.2 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 0.7 0.013 0.7 0.8
RO76 1 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.6 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 0.2 <0.002 0.5 0.8
RO77 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 <0.1 <0.002 0.2 0.2
RO78 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 0.4 <0.002 0.3 0.4
WSS41 0.5 1 0.5 1.1 1.3 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 0.4 0.011 1.3 2.3
TPS42 1.5 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.8 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 0.9 0.052 0.4 0.3
TPS43 0.5 13 11 17 20 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 10 0.023 11 0.7
TPS44 0.5 0.8 0.1 0.5 0.4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 0.2 0.049 <0.1 <0.1
WSS38 1 4.3 2.8 5.1 6.2 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 2.1 0.042 0.5 0.8
WSS39 0.5 0.6 0.6 1 0.9 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 0.3 0.005 0.4 0.6
WSS40 0.5 2 1.5 3.4 3.9 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 1.9 0.068 1 1.1
WSS46 0.5 2.6 2.6 3.6 5.8 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 2.6 0.004 1.5 1.1
WSS47 0.5 36 35 52 69 <0.5 <0.5 0.13 39 0.065 17 10
WSS49 0.5 5.2 7 18 17 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 7.5 0.016 2.5 2.1
WSS50 0.5 4.8 4.4 4.8 11 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 5.2 0.01 2.5 1.3
WSS54 2.22 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 0.3 0.007 0.5 0.2
WSS56 1 33 47 58 71 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 24 0.009 13 3.1
62
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
A.2.5. CAT Waste Results
Site Name
Location
Site ID
Job Number
Date
User Name
Company Name
Hole ID Sample Depth ContaminantContaminant
Concentration (%)Hazardous Waste Y/N Hazard Class Risk Phrases Exceeded
Additive Risk Phrases
Exceeded
H14 Risk Phrases
ExceededAdditional Risk Phrases (see notes section)
CRS60 1m Heavy fuel oil (combination of compounds)0.13 Y H7 R45
CRS60 1m Boron 0.002083333 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
CRS60 1m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01305159 N R43 see comment
CRS60 1m Nickel 0.005536515 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
CRS60 1m Vanadium 0.004106409 N R55 see comment
TPS42 3.5m Boron 0.007175926 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
TPS42 3.5m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.0155376 N R43 see comment
TPS42 3.5m Nickel 0.01001845 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
TPS42 3.5m Vanadium 0.004463489 N R55 see comment
TPS43 2.5m Boron 0.002314815 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
TPS43 2.5m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.006836544 N R43 see comment
TPS43 2.5m Nickel 0.004745584 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
TPS43 2.5m Vanadium 0.002142475 N R55 see comment
TPS44 1m Boron 0.003009259 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
TPS44 1m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01118707 N R43 see comment
TPS44 1m Nickel 0.01001845 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
TPS44 1m Vanadium 0.008569898 N R55 see comment
TPS73 1.5m Boron 0.002083333 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
TPS73 1.5m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.00932256 N R43 see comment
TPS73 1.5m Nickel 0.005800158 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
TPS73 1.5m Vanadium 0.003213712 N R55 see comment
TPS74 0.3m Boron 0.003472222 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
TPS74 0.3m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01740211 N R43 see comment
TPS74 0.3m Nickel 0.006327445 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
TPS74 0.3m Vanadium 0.008391359 N R55 see comment
WSS38 0.5m Heavy fuel oil (combination of compounds)0.26 Y H7 R45
WSS38 0.5m Boron 0.001851852 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
WSS38 0.5m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.0453698 N R43 see comment
WSS38 0.5m Nickel 0.004745584 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
WSS38 0.5m Zinc 0.01747573 N R43 see comment
WSS38 0.5m Vanadium 0.01392609 N R55 see comment
Heavy fuel oil (combination of compounds)0.38 Y H7 R45
WSS40 1m Boron 0.005092592 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
WSS40 1m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01118707 N R43 see comment
WSS40 1m Nickel 0.006327445 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
WSS40 1m Vanadium 0.005534726 N R55 see comment
WSS45 1m Boron 0.001851852 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
WSS45 1m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.0155376 N R43 see comment
WSS45 1m Nickel 0.005272871 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
WSS45 1m Vanadium 0.006070345 N R55 see comment
WSS48 0.5m Benzo(a)pyrene 0.011 Y H14 (R50 AND R53)
WSS48 0.5m Heavy fuel oil (combination of compounds)0.14 Y H7 R45
WSS48 0.5m Boron 0.001851852 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
WSS48 0.5m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.02672467 N R43 see comment
WSS48 0.5m Nickel 0.02583707 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
WSS48 0.5m Vanadium 0.01428316 N R55 see comment
Heavy fuel oil (combination of compounds)0.11 Y H7 R45
WSS49 0.5m Boron 0.002777778 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
WSS49 0.5m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01429459 N R43 see comment
WSS49 0.5m Nickel 0.01581861 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
WSS49 0.5m Vanadium 0.009641135 N R55 see comment
WSS55A 3.05m Benzo(a)pyrene 0.012 Y H14 (R50 AND R53)
WSS55A 3.05m Heavy fuel oil (combination of compounds)2.1 Y H7 R45
WSS55A 3.05m Boron 0.002314815 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
WSS55A 3.05m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01118707 N R43 see comment
WSS55A 3.05m Nickel 0.00369101 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
WSS55A 3.05m Zinc 0.007489598 N R43 see comment
WSS55A 3.05m Vanadium 0.004642028 N R55 see comment
Heavy fuel oil (combination of compounds)0.65 Y H7 R45
WSS63 1m Heavy fuel oil (combination of compounds)0.1 Y H7 R45
WSS63 1m Boron 0.0009259259 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
WSS63 1m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.03231821 N R43 see comment
Mott Macdonald
Classification Assessment Tool of Soil Wastes - Individual Compound Information
Leeds NGT
South Line
F1
236834
5/20/2010 4:28:02 PM
This output data has been generated by the CAT-Waste Soil waste classification tool provided by Atkins Consultants Ltd and J.McArdle Contracts and should be read in conjuntion with the standard Terms and Conditions 16:14 19/02/2013
Site Name
Location
Site ID
Job Number
Date
User Name
Company Name
Hole ID Sample Depth ContaminantContaminant
Concentration (%)Hazardous Waste Y/N Hazard Class Risk Phrases Exceeded
Additive Risk Phrases
Exceeded
H14 Risk Phrases
ExceededAdditional Risk Phrases (see notes section)
Mott Macdonald
Classification Assessment Tool of Soil Wastes - Individual Compound Information
Leeds NGT
South Line
F1
236834
5/20/2010 4:28:02 PM
WSS63 1m Nickel 0.01239125 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
WSS63 1m Zinc 0.01747573 N R43 see comment
WSS63 1m Vanadium 0.02856633 N R55 see comment
SPRTP01 1.6m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP01 1.6m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.006960845 N R43 see comment
SPRTP01 1.6m Nickel 0.0004218297 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP01 1.6m Zinc 0.00260749 N R43 see comment
SPRTP01 1.6m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP01 1.6m Thiocyanate 0.0014 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP01 2.5m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP01 2.5m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.00919826 N R43 see comment
SPRTP01 2.5m Nickel 0.001529133 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP01 2.5m Zinc 0.004576976 N R43 see comment
SPRTP01 2.5m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP01 2.5m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP02 0.9m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP02 0.9m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01205718 N R43 see comment
SPRTP02 0.9m Nickel 0.003638281 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP02 0.9m Zinc 0.006019418 N R43 see comment
SPRTP02 0.9m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP02 0.9m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP02 1.9m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP02 1.9m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.009695463 N R43 see comment
SPRTP02 1.9m Nickel 0.001397311 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP02 1.9m Zinc 0.003938973 N R43 see comment
SPRTP02 1.9m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP02 1.9m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP02 2.5m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP02 2.5m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01211933 N R43 see comment
SPRTP02 2.5m Nickel 0.001792776 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP02 2.5m Zinc 0.005381415 N R43 see comment
SPRTP02 2.5m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP02 2.5m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP03 0.6m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP03 0.6m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.005531386 N R43 see comment
SPRTP03 0.6m Nickel 0.004692855 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP03 0.6m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP03 0.6m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP04 0.8m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP04 0.8m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01056557 N R43 see comment
SPRTP04 0.8m Nickel 0.007540205 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP04 0.8m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP04 0.8m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP04 1.7m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP04 1.7m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.00310752 N R43 see comment
SPRTP04 1.7m Nickel 0.005879251 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP04 1.7m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP04 1.7m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP05 0.8m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP05 0.8m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01031697 N R43 see comment
SPRTP05 0.8m Nickel 0.006617453 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP05 0.8m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP05 0.8m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP05 1.8m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP05 1.8m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.009695463 N R43 see comment
SPRTP05 1.8m Nickel 0.007408384 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP05 1.8m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP05 1.8m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP06 0.9m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP06 0.9m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01317589 N R43 see comment
SPRTP06 0.9m Nickel 0.007434748 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP06 0.9m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
This output data has been generated by the CAT-Waste Soil waste classification tool provided by Atkins Consultants Ltd and J.McArdle Contracts and should be read in conjuntion with the standard Terms and Conditions 16:14 19/02/2013
Site Name
Location
Site ID
Job Number
Date
User Name
Company Name
Hole ID Sample Depth ContaminantContaminant
Concentration (%)Hazardous Waste Y/N Hazard Class Risk Phrases Exceeded
Additive Risk Phrases
Exceeded
H14 Risk Phrases
ExceededAdditional Risk Phrases (see notes section)
Mott Macdonald
Classification Assessment Tool of Soil Wastes - Individual Compound Information
Leeds NGT
South Line
F1
236834
5/20/2010 4:28:02 PM
SPRTP06 0.9m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP06 1.8m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP06 1.8m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01149782 N R43 see comment
SPRTP06 1.8m Nickel 0.009280253 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP06 1.8m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP06 1.8m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP07 0.6m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP07 0.6m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01280298 N R43 see comment
SPRTP07 0.6m Nickel 0.006907461 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP07 0.6m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP07 0.6m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP07 1.8m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP07 1.8m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01124922 N R43 see comment
SPRTP07 1.8m Nickel 0.00920116 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP07 1.8m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP07 1.8m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP08 0.8m Boron 0.001388889 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP08 0.8m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01249223 N R43 see comment
SPRTP08 0.8m Nickel 0.00714474 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP08 0.8m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP08 0.8m Thiocyanate 0.0011 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP08 2.9m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP08 2.9m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01056557 N R43 see comment
SPRTP08 2.9m Nickel 0.00962299 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP08 2.9m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP08 2.9m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP09 1.5m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP09 1.5m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01062772 N R43 see comment
SPRTP09 1.5m Nickel 0.008568415 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP09 1.5m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP09 1.5m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP09 2.8m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP09 2.8m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01050342 N R43 see comment
SPRTP09 2.8m Nickel 0.009174796 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP09 2.8m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP09 2.8m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP10 0.8m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP10 0.8m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01771287 N R43 see comment
SPRTP10 0.8m Nickel 0.01094121 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP10 0.8m Zinc 0.02122053 N R43 see comment
SPRTP10 0.8m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP10 0.8m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP10 2m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP10 2m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.02026103 N R43 see comment
SPRTP10 2m Nickel 0.01022937 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP10 2m Zinc 0.01864078 N R43 see comment
SPRTP10 2m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP10 2m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP11 0.7m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP11 0.7m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01733996 N R43 see comment
SPRTP11 0.7m Nickel 0.01196942 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP11 0.7m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP11 0.7m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP12 0.6m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP12 0.6m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01454319 N R43 see comment
SPRTP12 0.6m Nickel 0.008568415 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP12 0.6m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP12 0.6m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP13 0.6m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP13 0.6m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01678061 N R43 see comment
SPRTP13 0.6m Nickel 0.009148431 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP13 0.6m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
This output data has been generated by the CAT-Waste Soil waste classification tool provided by Atkins Consultants Ltd and J.McArdle Contracts and should be read in conjuntion with the standard Terms and Conditions 16:14 19/02/2013
Site Name
Location
Site ID
Job Number
Date
User Name
Company Name
Hole ID Sample Depth ContaminantContaminant
Concentration (%)Hazardous Waste Y/N Hazard Class Risk Phrases Exceeded
Additive Risk Phrases
Exceeded
H14 Risk Phrases
ExceededAdditional Risk Phrases (see notes section)
Mott Macdonald
Classification Assessment Tool of Soil Wastes - Individual Compound Information
Leeds NGT
South Line
F1
236834
5/20/2010 4:28:02 PM
SPRTP13 0.6m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP13 1.7m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP13 1.7m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01472965 N R43 see comment
SPRTP13 1.7m Nickel 0.008489323 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP13 1.7m Zinc 0.01911234 N R43 see comment
SPRTP13 1.7m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP13 1.7m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP14 0.8m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP14 0.8m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01274083 N R43 see comment
SPRTP14 0.8m Nickel 0.007355655 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP14 0.8m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP14 0.8m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP14 2.5m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP14 2.5m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01180858 N R43 see comment
SPRTP14 2.5m Nickel 0.008093857 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP14 2.5m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP14 2.5m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP15 0.9m Boron 0.003703704 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP15 0.9m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01336234 N R43 see comment
SPRTP15 0.9m Nickel 0.009491168 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP15 0.9m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP15 0.9m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP16 0.7m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP16 0.7m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01131137 N R43 see comment
SPRTP16 0.7m Nickel 0.005404693 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP16 0.7m Zinc 0.01381415 N R43 see comment
SPRTP16 0.7m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP16 0.7m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP16 1.8m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP16 1.8m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.0157862 N R43 see comment
SPRTP16 1.8m Nickel 0.01012391 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP16 1.8m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP16 1.8m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP17 1m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP17 1m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01702921 N R43 see comment
SPRTP17 1m Nickel 0.006090166 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP17 1m Zinc 0.01864078 N R43 see comment
SPRTP17 1m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP17 1m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP18 0.6m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP18 0.6m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01702921 N R43 see comment
SPRTP18 0.6m Nickel 0.005562879 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP18 0.6m Zinc 0.01262136 N R43 see comment
SPRTP18 0.6m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP18 0.6m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP18 1.6m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP18 1.6m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.009509012 N R43 see comment
SPRTP18 1.6m Nickel 0.00877933 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP18 1.6m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP18 1.6m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP19 0.9m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP19 0.9m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.015289 N R43 see comment
SPRTP19 0.9m Nickel 0.01078302 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP19 0.9m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP19 0.9m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP19 3.2m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP19 3.2m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01497825 N R43 see comment
SPRTP19 3.2m Nickel 0.01270762 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP19 3.2m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP19 3.2m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP20 2m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP20 2m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01267868 N R43 see comment
This output data has been generated by the CAT-Waste Soil waste classification tool provided by Atkins Consultants Ltd and J.McArdle Contracts and should be read in conjuntion with the standard Terms and Conditions 16:14 19/02/2013
Site Name
Location
Site ID
Job Number
Date
User Name
Company Name
Hole ID Sample Depth ContaminantContaminant
Concentration (%)Hazardous Waste Y/N Hazard Class Risk Phrases Exceeded
Additive Risk Phrases
Exceeded
H14 Risk Phrases
ExceededAdditional Risk Phrases (see notes section)
Mott Macdonald
Classification Assessment Tool of Soil Wastes - Individual Compound Information
Leeds NGT
South Line
F1
236834
5/20/2010 4:28:02 PM
SPRTP20 2m Nickel 0.01078302 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP20 2m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP20 2m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP21 0.7m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP21 0.7m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.009509012 N R43 see comment
SPRTP21 0.7m Nickel 0.005536515 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP21 0.7m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP21 0.7m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP22 0.7m Boron 0.001388889 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP22 0.7m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01410814 N R43 see comment
SPRTP22 0.7m Nickel 0.006274716 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP22 0.7m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP22 0.7m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP22 1.9m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP22 1.9m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01348664 N R43 see comment
SPRTP22 1.9m Nickel 0.008225678 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP22 1.9m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP22 1.9m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP23 0.8m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP23 0.8m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01622126 N R43 see comment
SPRTP23 0.8m Nickel 0.008278407 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP23 0.8m Zinc 0.02230236 N R43 see comment
SPRTP23 0.8m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP23 0.8m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP24 0.7m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP24 0.7m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01497825 N R43 see comment
SPRTP24 0.7m Nickel 0.00817295 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP24 0.7m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP24 0.7m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP25 0.8m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP25 0.8m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01485395 N R43 see comment
SPRTP25 0.8m Nickel 0.004666491 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP25 0.8m Zinc 0.01694868 N R43 see comment
SPRTP25 0.8m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP25 0.8m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP25 1.9m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP25 1.9m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01572405 N R43 see comment
SPRTP25 1.9m Nickel 0.009965726 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP25 1.9m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP25 1.9m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP26 0.6m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP26 0.6m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01292728 N R43 see comment
SPRTP26 0.6m Nickel 0.009359346 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP26 0.6m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP26 0.6m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP26 1.7m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP26 1.7m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01149782 N R43 see comment
SPRTP26 1.7m Nickel 0.008278407 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP26 1.7m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP26 1.7m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP27 0.9m Boron 0.001388889 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP27 0.9m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.02125544 N R43 see comment
SPRTP27 0.9m Nickel 0.01352491 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP27 0.9m Zinc 0.02585298 N R43 see comment
SPRTP27 0.9m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP27 0.9m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP27 2.1m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP27 2.1m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01056557 N R43 see comment
SPRTP27 2.1m Nickel 0.008568415 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP27 2.1m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP27 2.1m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP28 0.6m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
This output data has been generated by the CAT-Waste Soil waste classification tool provided by Atkins Consultants Ltd and J.McArdle Contracts and should be read in conjuntion with the standard Terms and Conditions 16:14 19/02/2013
Site Name
Location
Site ID
Job Number
Date
User Name
Company Name
Hole ID Sample Depth ContaminantContaminant
Concentration (%)Hazardous Waste Y/N Hazard Class Risk Phrases Exceeded
Additive Risk Phrases
Exceeded
H14 Risk Phrases
ExceededAdditional Risk Phrases (see notes section)
Mott Macdonald
Classification Assessment Tool of Soil Wastes - Individual Compound Information
Leeds NGT
South Line
F1
236834
5/20/2010 4:28:02 PM
SPRTP28 0.6m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01659416 N R43 see comment
SPRTP28 0.6m Nickel 0.006564725 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP28 0.6m Zinc 0.0168932 N R43 see comment
SPRTP28 0.6m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP28 0.6m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP28 1.7m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP28 1.7m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01472965 N R43 see comment
SPRTP28 1.7m Nickel 0.008621144 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP28 1.7m Zinc 0.02036061 N R43 see comment
SPRTP28 1.7m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP28 1.7m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP29 0.9m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP29 0.9m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01740211 N R43 see comment
SPRTP29 0.9m Nickel 0.009095702 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP29 0.9m Zinc 0.02277393 N R43 see comment
SPRTP29 0.9m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP29 0.9m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP29 2.4m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP29 2.4m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.0157862 N R43 see comment
SPRTP29 2.4m Nickel 0.009095702 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP29 2.4m Zinc 0.02058253 N R43 see comment
SPRTP29 2.4m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP29 2.4m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRTP30 0.5m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRTP30 0.5m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.02336855 N R43 see comment
SPRTP30 0.5m Nickel 0.005009227 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRTP30 0.5m Zinc 0.02047157 N R43 see comment
SPRTP30 0.5m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRTP30 0.5m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRBH1 0.7m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRBH1 0.7m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01597265 N R43 see comment
SPRBH1 0.7m Nickel 0.01131031 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRBH1 0.7m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRBH1 0.7m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRBH2 0.6m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRBH2 0.6m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.0161591 N R43 see comment
SPRBH2 0.6m Nickel 0.007962035 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRBH2 0.6m Zinc 0.02085992 N R43 see comment
SPRBH2 0.6m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRBH2 0.6m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRBH4 1m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRBH4 1m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01870727 N R43 see comment
SPRBH4 1m Nickel 0.007698392 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRBH4 1m Zinc 0.02191401 N R43 see comment
SPRBH4 1m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRBH4 1m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRBH5 1m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRBH5 1m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01249223 N R43 see comment
SPRBH5 1m Nickel 0.007856578 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRBH5 1m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRBH5 1m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRBH6 1m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRBH6 1m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01609696 N R43 see comment
SPRBH6 1m Nickel 0.009253888 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRBH6 1m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRBH6 1m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRBH7 1m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRBH7 1m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01609696 N R43 see comment
SPRBH7 1m Nickel 0.00962299 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRBH7 1m Zinc 0.02196949 N R43 see comment
SPRBH7 1m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRBH7 1m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
This output data has been generated by the CAT-Waste Soil waste classification tool provided by Atkins Consultants Ltd and J.McArdle Contracts and should be read in conjuntion with the standard Terms and Conditions 16:14 19/02/2013
Site Name
Location
Site ID
Job Number
Date
User Name
Company Name
Hole ID Sample Depth ContaminantContaminant
Concentration (%)Hazardous Waste Y/N Hazard Class Risk Phrases Exceeded
Additive Risk Phrases
Exceeded
H14 Risk Phrases
ExceededAdditional Risk Phrases (see notes section)
Mott Macdonald
Classification Assessment Tool of Soil Wastes - Individual Compound Information
Leeds NGT
South Line
F1
236834
5/20/2010 4:28:02 PM
SPRBH8 0.5m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRBH8 0.5m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01572405 N R43 see comment
SPRBH8 0.5m Nickel 0.009253888 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRBH8 0.5m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRBH8 0.5m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRBH9 1m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRBH9 1m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01746426 N R43 see comment
SPRBH9 1m Nickel 0.008489323 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRBH9 1m Zinc 0.02105409 N R43 see comment
SPRBH9 1m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRBH9 1m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRBH10 1.5m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRBH10 1.5m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01914232 N R43 see comment
SPRBH10 1.5m Nickel 0.009174796 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRBH10 1.5m Zinc 0.02560333 N R43 see comment
SPRBH10 1.5m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRBH10 1.5m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRBH11 1m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRBH11 1m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01622126 N R43 see comment
SPRBH11 1m Nickel 0.00920116 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRBH11 1m Zinc 0.02230236 N R43 see comment
SPRBH11 1m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRBH11 1m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRBH12 1.5m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRBH12 1.5m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.008390305 N R43 see comment
SPRBH12 1.5m Nickel 0.005431057 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRBH12 1.5m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRBH12 1.5m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRBH14 0.7m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRBH14 0.7m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01665631 N R43 see comment
SPRBH14 0.7m Nickel 0.00696019 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRBH14 0.7m Zinc 0.01764216 N R43 see comment
SPRBH14 0.7m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRBH14 0.7m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRBH15 1m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRBH15 1m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01852082 N R43 see comment
SPRBH15 1m Nickel 0.006353809 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRBH15 1m Zinc 0.02271845 N R43 see comment
SPRBH15 1m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRBH15 1m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRBH3 1m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRBH3 1m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01584835 N R43 see comment
SPRBH3 1m Nickel 0.01407857 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRBH3 1m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRBH3 1m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
SPRBH13 1m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
SPRBH13 1m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01292728 N R43 see comment
SPRBH13 1m Nickel 0.008120221 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
SPRBH13 1m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
SPRBH13 1m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
HSBH3 1m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
HSBH3 1m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01249223 N R43 see comment
HSBH3 1m Nickel 0.005009227 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
HSBH3 1m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
HSBH3 3.25m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
HSBH3 3.25m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01740211 N R43 see comment
HSBH3 3.25m Nickel 0.009280253 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
HSBH3 3.25m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
HSBH6 1m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
HSBH6 1m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01765071 N R43 see comment
HSBH6 1m Nickel 0.008805695 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
HSBH6 1m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
This output data has been generated by the CAT-Waste Soil waste classification tool provided by Atkins Consultants Ltd and J.McArdle Contracts and should be read in conjuntion with the standard Terms and Conditions 16:14 19/02/2013
Site Name
Location
Site ID
Job Number
Date
User Name
Company Name
Hole ID Sample Depth ContaminantContaminant
Concentration (%)Hazardous Waste Y/N Hazard Class Risk Phrases Exceeded
Additive Risk Phrases
Exceeded
H14 Risk Phrases
ExceededAdditional Risk Phrases (see notes section)
Mott Macdonald
Classification Assessment Tool of Soil Wastes - Individual Compound Information
Leeds NGT
South Line
F1
236834
5/20/2010 4:28:02 PM
HSBH7 1m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
HSBH7 1m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01920447 N R43 see comment
HSBH7 1m Nickel 0.009965726 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
HSBH7 1m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
HSBH7 4m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
HSBH7 4m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.02137974 N R43 see comment
HSBH7 4m Nickel 0.01009755 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
HSBH7 4m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
HSBH10 0.5m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
HSBH10 0.5m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.009695463 N R43 see comment
HSBH10 0.5m Nickel 0.003242816 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment
HSBH10 0.5m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test
This output data has been generated by the CAT-Waste Soil waste classification tool provided by Atkins Consultants Ltd and J.McArdle Contracts and should be read in conjuntion with the standard Terms and Conditions 16:14 19/02/2013
63
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
A.3. Gas Monitoring Methodology
Gas monitoring standpipes were installed within exploratory holes where there was the potential for ground
gas to be generated by either Made Ground or natural sources.
The installations have been placed in accordance with guidance presented in BS8485 “Code of practice for
the characterization and remediation from ground gas in affected developments” and CIRIA665 “Assessing
risks posed by hazardous ground gases to buildings”
In accordance with the guidance above, the installations were monitored for:
Methane
Oxygen
Carbon Monoxide
Carbon Dioxide
Hydrogen Sulphide
Gas Flow Rate
Atmospheric Pressure
In addition these holes were also monitored using a PID meter to determine the presence of volatile
compounds
A.3.1. Site Characteristic hazardous gas flow rate
Following the guidance presented in BS 8485, the following site monitoring data was acquired for each
monitoring point:
a) ground gas concentration as measured by monitoring equipment methods for ground gas
concentrations measurement as given in CIRIA C665 expressed as a percentage by volume of
each hazardous ground gas being considered (methane and carbon dioxide) which provides a
concentration Chg for each specific hazardous gas.
b) borehole flow rate i.e. volume of total gas flow measured as being emitted from the monitoring
point, q, expressed in litres per hour
Thus for each monitoring point for each monitoring event, hazardous gas flow rate Qhg should be calculated
using Equation B.3.1:
(Equation A.3-1)
If gas borehole flow was not detectable, it should be assumed to be at the detection limit of the equipment
used.
Having determined the hazardous gas flow rate, the characteristic gas situation in the rage 1 to 6 should be
chosen using the Table A.8.
Table A.8: Characteristic Gas situation by site characteristic gas flow rate
Characteristic Gas Situation
Hazard Potential Site Characteristic hazardous gas flow rate (l/hr)
Additional Factors
1 Very Low <0.07 Typically ≤ 1% methane concentration and ≤ 5& carbon dioxide concentration (otherwise consider an
qC
Qhg
hg 100
64
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
Characteristic Gas Situation
Hazard Potential Site Characteristic hazardous gas flow rate (l/hr)
Additional Factors
increased characteristic gas regime)
2 Low ≥0.07 - <0.7 Typical measured flow rate < 70 l/hr (otherwise consider an increased characteristic gas regime)
3 Moderate ≥ 0.7, <3.5
4 Moderate to High ≥3.5, <15 Quantitative risk assessment required to evaluate scope of protective measures
5 High ≥15, <70
6 Very high ≥70
Source: BS845:2007 and CIRIA C665
65
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
B.1. Bearing Resistance Methodology
Partial Factors
Table B.1 summarises the values of Partial Factors in accordance with Design Approach 1 and Design
Approach 2, BS EN 1997-1:2004 11
.
Table B.1: Partial Factors for Design Approach 1 and Design Approach 2
Design Approach 1 Design Approach 2
Combination 1 Combination 2
Permanent Actions - Unfavourable 1.35 1.0 1.35
Permanent Actions - Favourable 1.0 1.0 -
Angle of Friction, φ (˚) 1.0 1.25 1.0
Undrained Cohesion, cu (kPa) 1.0 1.4 1.0
Bearing resistance 1.0 1.0 1.4
Source: BS EN 1997-1:2004
Assumptions
The following was assumed when calculating preliminary bearing capacities:
assume a strip footing;
width of the footing was 1.0m;
depth of the footing was 1.0m;
traffic live load of 10kN/m2;
settlements are acceptable; and
assumed characteristic parameters are acceptable;
Equation
The ultimate bearing resistance of a soil is described by Terzaghi’s bearing resistance equation as:
(Equation B.1-1)
Where:
Nc, Nq and Nγ are Birch - Hansen’s Bearing Resistance Factors related to the φ of the soil;
c is the cohesion of the material;
γ is the unit weight;
z is the depth of the footing; and
B is the width of the footing.
Design Approach 2, applies a partial factor to the gross bearing resistance to be in line with other
geotechnical structures.
The soil parameters c and φ are not necessarily total stress parameters and dependent on the drainage
conditions. For a clay, c is take as cu and for sands and gravels φ is φ’ and c = 0.
Appendix B. Calculation Methodology
NBNzNcQ qcULT 5.0
66
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
B.2. Slope Stability Methodology
Partial Factors
Table B.2 summarises the partial factors for Design Approach 1, Combination 1 and Combination 2 as
required by BS EN1997-1:2004 11
.
Table B.2 Partial Factors for Design Approach 1, Combination 1 and Combination 2
Combination 1 Combination 2
Permanent Actions - Unfavourable 1.35 1.0
Permanent Actions - Favourable 1.0 1.0
Angle of Friction, φ (˚) 1.0 1.25
Effective Cohesion, c’ (kPa) 1.0. 1.25
Undrained Cohesion, cu (kPa) 1.0 1.4
Source: BS EN 1997-1:2004
Assumptions
The following was assumed when carrying preliminary slope stability assessments:
infinite slope;
dry granular slope;
pore pressures are evenly distributed through cohesive soil slopes;
minimum slip surface is 0.5m deep; and
first time failures.
Equation
Two methods are proposed for cohesive and granular material encountered during the preliminary ground
investigation. Equation C.2-1 is for cohesive material and can be manipulated to give a stability number N
(Equation C.2-2) for quick assessment of stability. Equation C.2-3 is for quick stability assessment for
granular soils.
The global factor of safety against sliding is given by the infinite slope expression for cohesive soils, with ru
= 0 for dry slopes;
(Equation B.2-1)
Where:
c’ is the effective cohesion;
ru is the pore water pressure;
γ is the soil unit weight
H is the height to the stratum below, be it impermeable or permeable;
β is the slope angle; and
φ is the friction angle of the soil.
The infinite slope expression can be rearranged to give a stability number (N) which can be compared to
stability charts, such that:
cossin
tancos)1(' 2
H
HrcFoS u
67
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
(Equation B.2-2)
The Factor of Safety against sliding for an infinite dry slope of granular soil is give as:
(Equation B.2-3)
Where;
β is the slope angle; and
φ is the friction angle of the soil.
EC7 requires that for slope stability analysis, the application of partial factors to the actions and resistances
leads to a “target” factor of safety, FoS = 1.0. A FoS < 1.0 means that the slope has failed the EC7
specification.
H
cN
'
tan
tanFoS
68
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
This document has been prepared for the titled project or named part thereof and should not be relied upon
or used for any other project without an independent check being carried out as to its suitability and prior
written authority of MM being obtained. MM accepts no responsibility or liability for the consequences of
this document being used for a purpose other than the purpose for which it was commissioned. Any person
using or relying on the document for such other purposes agrees, and will by such use or reliance to be
taken to confirm his agreement to indemnify MM for all loss or damage resulting there from. MM accepts no
responsibility or liability for this document to any party other than the person by whom it was
commissioned.
To the extent that this document is based on information supplied by other parties, MM accepts no liability
for any loss or damage suffered by the Client stemming from any conclusions based on data supplied by
parties other than MM and used by MM in preparing this report.
The findings and opinions of this report are based on information obtained from a variety of sources, as
detailed in this report. MM cannot and does not guarantee the authenticity or reliability of the information it
has relied on from others. To the extent that this document is based on information obtained from ground
investigations persons using or relying on it should recognise that any such investigation can examine only
a fraction of the subsurface conditions. Also, in any ground investigation there remains a risk that pockets
or “hot-spots” of contamination may not be identified, because investigations are necessarily based on
sampling at localised points. It is also noted that much of the previous ground investigation data may pre-
date current testing and contamination assessment guidelines. Furthermore, certain indicators or evidence
of hazardous substances or conditions may have been outside the portion of the subsurface investigated or
monitored and thus may not have been identified or their full significance appreciated.
It is also possible that environmental monitoring has not identified certain conditions because of the
relatively short monitoring period. Accordingly it is possible that the ground investigation and monitoring
failed to indicate the presence or significance of hazardous substances or conditions. If so, their presence
could not have been considered in the formulation of MM’s findings and opinions.
Appendix C. Limitations