aldi stores ltd - flintshire

ALDI STORES LTD Aldi, Chester Street, Mold

Geo-Environmental Assessment Report

DI/C3977/7959

October 2018

William Smith House

173-183 Witton Street

Northwich, Cheshire CW9 5LP

Tel: +44 (0) 1606 334 844

brownfield-solutions.com

DI/C3977/7959

Brownfield Solutions Limited ii Aldi Stores Ltd

Aldi, Chester Street, Mold

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Location The site covers an area of approximately 1.06 hectares and is situated approximately

300m north-east of Mold Town Centre at National Grid Reference 323983, 36412.

The site is irregular in shape and consists of an existing single storey Aldi supermarket

in the west, and associated car park areas occupying most of the south and east of

the site.

The site is bounded by King Street to the north and Chester Street to the south; the

properties to the east and west are predominantly commercial. The surrounding land

use is largely mixed commercial and residential. A retaining wall is present along the

southern boundary.

Ground Conditions Made ground was encountered across site to depths of between 0.30m and 0.40m

bgl.

The superficial deposits underlying the site comprise a slightly clayey gravelly sand to

between 1.00m and 1.40m bgl over a sandy clay down to between 4.50m and

8.50m bgl.

Bedrock was encountered from between 4.50m bgl and 8.50m bgl and comprised

interbeds of sandstone, siltstone and mudstone. Generally four coal seams were

encountered underlying the site and were generally 0.50m thick. All coal seams were

intact and no loss of flush was experienced during drilling. The shallowest coal seam

encountered was between 14.00m and 16.00m bgl.

Foundations and

Floor Slabs

The most suitable foundations for the proposed development are considered to be

pad and strip foundations founding within the slightly clayey gravelly sand

encountered from between 0.30m and 0.40m bgl. A bearing capacity of 150kN/m2 is

likely to be achieved within this strata. The construction of the foundation should

account for the position of the on-site culvert. Past coal mining is not considered to pose a risk to future on-site development.

Ground bearing floor slabs would be suitable on-site and would need to be designed

to accommodate full radon precautions.

Soil Contamination Chemical testing did not identify any heavy metals, PAHs or phenols elevated above

commercial screening values.

Asbestos was not detected in any of the made ground samples.

Ground Gases Interim ground gas monitoring results indicate site end-users are not at risk from

carbon dioxide or methane. The site lies in an area requiring full radon precautions.

Highways CBR values of 2% - 5% are likely to be achieved, however this should be confirmed by

in-situ testing at sub-base level by a specialist geotechnical engineer.

Further Work • Completion of gas monitoring programme.

• Demolition Asbestos survey.

• Tree survey by qualified arboriculturist.

• Detailed foundation design.

• Production of ground gas protection measures verification plan.

DI/C3977/7959

Brownfield Solutions Limited iii Aldi Stores Ltd


PROJECT QUALITY CONTROL DATA SHEET

Site Name: Aldi, Chester Street, Mold

Report Name: Geo-Environmental Assessment Report

Report Number: DI/C9377/7959

Date: 25th October 2018

Status: Final

Revision:

Client: Aldi Stores Ltd Engineer: SWF Consulting Ltd

Chester High Road

Neston

Chester

CH64 3TS

Unit 4

Millbank House

Riverside Business Park

Wilmslow

Cheshire

Contact: Bryn Richards Contact: Phil Sarbutts

Written by: Checked by: Approved by:

D Ingman D M Gates A Stokoe MESci FGS MGeoscience FGS BSc (Hons) CSci MIEnvSc FGS

DI/C3977/7959

Geo-Environmental Assessment Report iv Aldi Stores Ltd


CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................1 1.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................1 1.3 LIMITATIONS ...........................................................................................................................1

2.0 THE SITE ............................................................................................................................ 2

2.1 LOCATION & ACCESS ................................................................................................................2 2.2 SITE DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................................2

3.0 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION ............................................................................................ 3

3.1 OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................3 3.2 SITE WORKS ...........................................................................................................................3 3.3 SAMPLING ..............................................................................................................................3 3.4 LABORATORY TESTING ..............................................................................................................4 3.5 MONITORING .........................................................................................................................4

4.0 GROUND CONDITIONS ...................................................................................................... 6

4.1 MADE GROUND ......................................................................................................................6 4.2 NATURAL GROUND ..................................................................................................................6 4.3 BEDROCK ...............................................................................................................................6 4.4 GROUNDWATER ......................................................................................................................7 4.5 OBSERVATIONS .......................................................................................................................7

5.0 TEST RESULTS .................................................................................................................... 8

5.1 CHEMICAL TEST RESULTS...........................................................................................................8 5.2 AGGRESSIVE GROUND CONDITIONS .............................................................................................8 5.3 WASTE DISPOSAL TESTING RESULTS ............................................................................................8 5.4 WASTE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA (WAC) RESULTS ............................................................................9 5.5 GAS MONITORING RESULTS .......................................................................................................9

6.0 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ......................................................................................... 10

6.1 GENERAL .............................................................................................................................10 6.2 SOIL PARAMETERS .................................................................................................................10 6.3 FOUNDATIONS ......................................................................................................................10 6.4 COAL MINING RISK ................................................................................................................11 6.5 BUILDING NEAR TREES............................................................................................................12 6.6 FLOOR SLABS ........................................................................................................................12 6.7 CONSTRUCTION .....................................................................................................................13 6.8 HIGHWAYS ...........................................................................................................................13 6.9 SOAKAWAYS .........................................................................................................................13 6.10 RETAINING WALL ..................................................................................................................13

7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT...................................................................................... 15

7.1 CONTAMINATION ..................................................................................................................15 7.2 QUALITATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT ...............................................................................................15 7.3 REMEDIAL MEASURES ............................................................................................................17 7.4 ASBESTOS ............................................................................................................................17 7.5 HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES .....................................................................................................17 7.6 WASTE ................................................................................................................................18 7.7 COMPLIANCE ........................................................................................................................19

DI/C3977/7959

Geo-Environmental Assessment Report v Aldi Stores Ltd


8.0 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................. 20

8.1 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................20 8.2 FURTHER WORK ....................................................................................................................20

9 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 22

DRAWINGS

Drawing Number Rev Title

C3977/01 - Site Location Plan

C3977/03 - Extract from Coal Authority Online Viewer

C3977/04 - Exploratory Hole Location Plan

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Exploratory Hole Logs

APPENDIX B Chemical Testing Results

APPENDIX C Ground Gas Monitoring Results

APPENDIX D Contaminated Land Screening Values

APPENDIX E Waste Classification Report

APPENDIX F CIRIA Risk Assessment Methodology

APPENDIX G Contaminated Land Legislative Background

APPENDIX H Waste Disposal Guidance

APPENDIX I CL:AIRE CoP Guidance

APPENDIX J Limitations

DI/C3977/7959

Geo-Environmental Assessment Report 1 Aldi Stores Ltd


GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

FOR A SITE AT

ALDI, CHESTER STREET, MOLD

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Objectives

1.1.1 This report describes a Geo-environmental Assessment carried out by Brownfield

Solutions Limited (BSL) for Aldi Stores Limited on a site Chester Street, Mold.

1.1.2 The objectives of the assessment were to determine the sites environmental setting

and likely site conditions, highlighting potential areas of concern that may govern

the sites redevelopment, in particular with respect to unrecorded shallow coal

mining.

1.1.3 An intrusive investigation was undertaken to confirm the findings of the preliminary

CSM within the Desk Study Assessment Report (Ref: GP/3977/7758, July 2018) and

to confirm the findings of the Coal Mining Risk Assessment (Ref: BM/C3977/7741,

July 2018). The above reports should be read in conjunction with this report.

1.1.4 The investigation was undertaken using rotary openhole boreholes.

1.1.5 The report has been completed in general a o da e ith CL‘ Model P o edu es fo the Ma age e t of La d Co ta i atio , BS 5930:2015 and BS

10175:2011+A2:2017.

1.2 Proposed Development

1.2.1 The proposed development is commercial end use comprising a steel framed retail

building and associated car park areas.

1.3 Limitations

1.3.1 This assessment has been carried out based on information obtained from a number

of areas, BSL have assumed that this information is correct.

1.3.2 There may be other conditions prevailing on the site which are outside the scope of

work and have not been highlighted by this assessment and therefore not been

taken into account by this report. Responsibility cannot be accepted for such site

conditions not revealed by the assessment.

1.3.3 This report has been prepared for the sole use of the client. No other third parties

may rely upon or reproduce the contents of this report without the written

permission of Brownfield Solutions Ltd (BSL). If any unauthorised third party comes

into possession of this report they rely on it at their own risk and BSL do not owe

them any Duty of Care.

DI/C3977/7959



2.0 THE SITE

2.1 Location & Access

2.1.1 The site covers an area of approximately 1.06 hectares and is situated approximately

300m north-east of Mold Town Centre.

2.1.2 The site is centred on National Grid Reference 323983, 364128 as shown on the Site

Location Plan C3977/01.

2.1.3 Access to the site is gained via a roundabout at the junction between A541 and King

Street.

2.2 Site Description

2.2.1 A site walkover was carried out on the 23rd July 2018. The main features of the site

are outlined below.

2.2.2 The site is irregular in shape and consists of an existing single storey Aldi

supermarket in the west, and associated car park areas occupying most of the south

and east of the site.

2.2.3 A McDonalds restaurant occupies the north-eastern corner of the site.

2.2.4 The site is bounded by King Street to the north and Chester Street to the south; the

properties to the east and west are predominantly commercial. The surrounding

land use is largely mixed commercial and residential.

2.2.5 The site is generally level, though it is lower than the land to the west, south, and

north. There are embankments to the west and north and a retaining wall along the

southern boundary of the property.

2.2.6 The building adjacent to the south-east of the site is currently being demolished and

is surrounded by heras fencing which occupies part of the site.

2.2.7 Vehicular access is available from the roundabout north-east of the site and

additional pedestrian access is available from the south and west.

DI/C3977/7959



3.0 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION

3.1 Objectives

3.1.1 The aim of the fieldwork was to:

• Investigate ground conditions on the site.

• Assess the potential contamination on the site and obtain samples for

contamination screening.

• Assess the potential impact of any contamination on controlled waters.

• Assess the need for detailed investigation.

• Obtain geotechnical information on the ground conditions at the site for

preliminary foundation design and preliminary pavement design purposes.

• Install standpipes to allow future monitoring.

• Give an assessment of the geo - environmental risks associated with

redevelopment of the site.

• Assess the risk of subsidence associated with past mine workings.

3.2 Site Works

3.2.1 Five rotary open boreholes (RO101 to RO105) were drilled to depths of between

30.0m and 40.0m bgl using a Klemm Krupp tracked rotary percussive rig between 1st

October and 2nd October 2018.

3.2.2 The approximate locations of the exploratory holes are indicated on the Exploratory

Hole Location Plan Drawing No. C3977/04. The exploratory hole logs are presented

in Appendix A.

3.2.3 The exploratory holes were positioned to establish general ground conditions on the

site and investigate the footprint of the proposed development. In particular the

works were undertaken to investigate the risk posed by coal mining associated with

the shafts presented within Drawing No. C3977/03 The boreholes were logged by an

experienced geo-environmental engineer in general accordance ith B“ Code of P a ti e fo “ite I estigatio s 2015, BS EN 14688- : Geote h i al Investigation and Testing – Identification and classification of soil and BS EN ISO

14689:2002 Geotechnical investigation and testing – Identification and

classification of rock .

3.3 Sampling

3.3.1 During the digging of the hand pits representative samples were taken at regular

intervals to assist in the identification of the soils and to allow subsequent laboratory

testing.

3.3.2 A summary of the samples taken is presented in the table below:

Type Number

Environmental 7

Disturbed 8

3.3.3 The type of sample is dependent upon the stratum and the purpose of analysis in

accordance with current environmental and geotechnical guidance.

DI/C3977/7959



3.3.4 Disturbed samples of soil for chemical testing were placed in plastic tubs and amber

jars as required by the UKAS accredited laboratory, and transported under secure

refrigerated conditions.

3.3.5 The distribution of samples taken across the site is recorded on the exploratory logs

in Appendix A.

3.4 Laboratory Testing

3.4.1 As part of the initial assessment for potential contamination of the site, selected

samples were taken for the purpose of chemical contamination testing.

3.4.2 The following were analysed at an UKAS approved laboratory:

Determinand Matrix Number

Arsenic, cadmium, chromium (total and hexavalent),

copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, zinc,

speciated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),

total phenol, free cyanide, water soluble sulphate (2:1

Extract), soil organic matter and pH.

Soil 5

Asbestos Screen and Identification Soil 3

Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) Soil and Eluate 1

3.4.3 The Chemical Laboratory Testing Results are presented in Appendix B.

3.4.4 Representative disturbed samples were obtained for all soil types encountered.

Selected samples were scheduled for testing at an approved laboratory in

a o da e ith B“ Method of Test fo “oils fo Ci il E gi ee i g Pu poses 1990. The following tests were scheduled:

BS Test

Number

Description No of Samples

Part 3: pH Value 3

Part 3: Water Soluble Sulphate Content 3

3.4.5 The Geotechnical Laboratory Testing Results are presented in Appendix B.

3.5 Monitoring

3.5.1 Gas and water monitoring standpipes were installed in the boreholes and

subsequently one monitoring visit was undertaken. All gas monitoring was

undertaken using GA 2000/5000 infrared gas meter with integral electronic flow

analyser.

3.5.2 Measurements of the percentage volume in air (%v/v) of oxygen (O2), carbon dioxide

(CO2) and methane (CH4) were recorded in addition to the percentage Lower

Explosive Limit (%LEL) of methane and the atmospheric pressure. Flow

measurements on each standpipe (l/hr) were also taken. (Note: 100% LEL equates

to 5% by volume).

DI/C3977/7959



3.5.3 The standpipes consisted of poly vinyl chloride (PVC) pipe. A bentonite seal was

made around the plain pipe and a clean gravel pack was placed around the slotted

pipe. A summary of the installation construction is presented in the table below:

Location Depth to

base of

Borehole

(m bgl)

Response Zone

(m bgl)

Targeted Strata Reason

RO101 30.00 1.00 – 5.00 Natural

Superficial

Ground Gas

RO102 30.00 1.00 – 5.00 Natural

Superficial

Ground Gas

RO103 30.00 1.00 – 5.00 Natural

Superficial

Ground Gas

RO104 40.00 1.00 – 5.00 Natural

Superficial

Ground Gas

RO105 40.00 1.00 – 5.00 Natural

Superficial

Ground Gas

3.5.4 The results monitored peak and steady state conditions. Peak results are those that

occur on opening the valve on the borehole tap. Steady state conditions are those

that occur a period of time afterwards when the initial (accumulated) gases have

been purged from the borehole.

3.5.5 Interim gas monitoring results are presented in Appendix C of this report.

DI/C3977/7959



4.0 GROUND CONDITIONS

4.1 Made Ground

4.1.1 Made ground was encountered within all exploratory hole locations down to

between 0.30m and 0.40m bgl.

4.1.2 Made ground comprised tarmac over a grey to light grey gravelly sand comprising

fine to coarse sand and fine to medium grained subangular gravel of limestone.

4.2 Natural Ground

4.2.1 The natural strata underlying the made ground comprised a brown orange sand and

gravel and slightly clayey gravelly sand. This comprised fine to coarse sand and fine

to medium gravel of siltstone, sandstone and limestone, and also contained a low

cobble content of siltstone, sandstone and limestone. This was encountered down

to between 1.00m and 1.40m bgl.

4.2.2 Underlying this was a brown sandy clay with gravel bands encountered down to

between 4.50m and 8.50m bgl.

4.3 Bedrock

4.3.1 Bedrock was encountered within all exploratory holes from between 4.50m and

8.50m bgl.

4.3.2 The shallowest bedrock encountered generally comprised brown sandstone/

siltstone down to between 12.50m and 14.00m bgl.

4.3.3 Underlying this stratum was a grey siltstone/sandstone containing two seams of firm

coal between 0.50m and 0.80m thick. The stratum was encountered down to

between 20.80m and 28.50m bgl where a third coal seam approximately 0.50m thick

was encountered.

4.3.4 The deepest strata encountered was a grey mudstone/sandstone that generally

contained one coal seam 0.50m thick.

4.3.5 No broken ground was encountered during the investigation, additionally no loss of

flush or dropping of drilling rods was observed during drilling.

4.3.6 Coal was encountered within all exploratory holes, a summary of the coal seams is

presented in the table below:

Location Coal Depth (m bgl) Description

Top Bottom

RO101

16.00 16.50 Firm Coal

18.00 18.60 Firm Coal

20.80 21.80 Firm Coal

28.00 28.50 Firm Coal

RO102

15.30 15.80 Firm Coal

17.00 17.50 Firm Coal

22.50 23.00 Firm Coal

DI/C3977/7959



Location Coal Depth (m bgl) Description

Top Bottom

25.00 25.50 Firm Coal

RO103

16.00 16.60 Firm Coal

21.50 22.30 Firm Coal

23.50 24.00 Firm Coal

28.00 28.50 Firm Coal

RO104

14.00 14.50 Sandstone with coal bands

18.00 18.50 Firm Coal

20.00 20.80 Firm Coal

28.50 29.00 Firm Coal

RO105

14.00 14.50 Firm Coal

18.00 18.60 Firm Coal

21.50 22.30 Firm Coal

26.50 27.00 Firm Coal

37.50 38.00 Firm Coal

4.4 Groundwater

4.4.1 Due to water flush methods being used groundwater was not identifiable during the

ground investigation. The results of the groundwater monitoring levels following

the ground works are presented in Appendix C.

4.5 Observations

4.5.1 During the works undertaken by BSL observations for both visual and olfactory

evidence of contamination were made.

4.5.2 No visual or olfactory evidence of contamination was observed.

DI/C3977/7959



5.0 TEST RESULTS

5.1 Chemical Test Results

5.1.1 The samples were tested for an assessment of the chemical contamination and

results were examined with reference to a selection of guidance documents as

detailed in Appendix D.

5.1.2 The apparent exceedance of the relevant Tier 1 generic screening value for a

commercial end-use is taken as indicating further detailed assessment or remedial

action is required.

Metals

5.1.3 None of the tested metals were elevated above commercial screening values in any

of the samples.

Hydrocarbons

5.1.4 None of the tested polyaromatic hydrocarbons were elevated above commercial

screening values with many not being above the laboratory level of detection.

Phenol

5.1.5 None of the tested phenols were above the laboratory level of detection in any of

the samples.

Asbestos

5.1.6 Asbestos was not detected in the three samples of made ground tested.

5.2 Aggressive Ground Conditions

5.2.1 Water soluble sulphate testing was undertaken on five of the natural strata and

three of the made ground strata. The results revealed soluble sulphate (SO4)

contents of between 0.024 g/l and 0.32g/l in the natural strata, and 0.029g/l and

0.87g/l in the made ground. Associated pH values were obtained which ranged

between 7.7 and 10.3 in the natural strata, and 8.0 and 8.5 in the made ground

indicating slightly alkaline conditions.

5.3 Waste Disposal Testing Results

5.3.1 We have reviewed the testing results and inputted them into the HazWasteOnline

model which allows users to code and classify waste as defined in the EWC

(European Waste Catalogue 2002) based on EC Regulation 1272/2008 on the

Classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (CLP) and latest

Environment Agency guidance (WM3 Guida e o the lassifi atio a d assessment of waste (1st edition 2015)-Te h i al Guida e .

5.3.2 This is a useful tool as waste producers have the legal responsibility to classify any

waste they produce, despite most classifications in the UK being done by the waste

receivers.

5.3.3 Five samples were tested to assess whether they contained any contaminants in the

hazardous range when screened against assessment criteria within WM3. The

results are in the Waste Classification Report presented in Appendix E.

DI/C3977/7959



5.4 Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) Results

5.4.1 The Landfill Directive (Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfilling of waste) led to the

establishment of a methodology for classifying wastes. Wastes can only be accepted

at a landfill if they meet the relevant Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) for that type

of landfill. There are three different WAC, these are for:

• Inert waste.

• Non –hazardous waste.

• Hazardous waste.

5.4.2 Wastes should first be classified based on their total concentrations as detailed in

the previous section. WAC testing is then required if the end disposal route is a

landfill.

5.4.3 Solid and eluate WAC analysis was undertaken on one sample, the findings of which

are presented in the table below.

Location Depth

(m bgl)

Strata Type WAC Analysis

RO101 0.40 Sand and Gravel Inert

5.5 Gas Monitoring Results

5.5.1 Two gas monitoring visits have been undertaken to date on 9th October and 23rd

October 2018.

5.5.2 Methane was only detected within RO103 at a peak concentration of 0.4%v/v and

0.5%v/v. A steady state of 0.2%v/v was recorded in RC103 during the second visit.

5.5.3 Peak carbon dioxide concentrations ranged between 0.3%v/v and 3.6%v/v, steady

state concentrations ranged between 0.2%v/v and 3.1%v/v. The highest peak

concentrations were recorded in RO103, while the highest steady state

concentrations was recorded in RO105.

5.5.4 Peak oxygen conditions ranged between 12.7%v/v and 21.1%v/v. Steady state

conditions ranged between 3.4%v/v and 21.5%v/v. The lowest oxygen

concentrations were present within RO105.

5.5.5 Positive flows of between 0.1l/hr and 0.2l/hr were generally recorded in the holes.

A maximum flow of 0.6 l/hr was recorded in RO104 during the second visit.

5.5.6 The pressure during the monitoring period was between 1002mb and 1019mb and

was undertaken during a steady pressure trend.

5.5.7 Groundwater was encountered between 2.62m and 2.80m bgl during the

monitoring period. Groundwater was consistently present within RO102,

groundwater was also encountered within RO102 during the first visit and RO105

during the second visit. All other boreholes were dry.

DI/C3977/7959



6.0 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

6.1 General

6.1.1 Made ground was encountered across site to depths of between 0.30m and 0.40m

bgl.

6.1.2 The superficial deposits underlying the site comprise a slightly clayey gravelly sand

to between 1.00m and 1.40m bgl over a sandy clay down to between 4.50m and

8.50m bgl.

6.1.3 Bedrock was encountered from between 4.50m bgl and 8.50m bgl and comprised

interbeds of sandstone, siltstone and mudstone. Generally four coal seams were

encountered underlying the site and were generally 0.50m thick. All coal seams

were intact and no loss of flush or voids were recorded during drilling. The

shallowest coal seam encountered was between 14.00m and 16.00m bgl.

6.1.4 A retaining wall is present along the southern boundary of the site and a culvert runs

roughly NNW-SSE through the east of the site.

6.2 Soil Parameters

6.2.1 The geotechnical soil parameters were not measured during the site investigation

due to the investigation technique used.

6.2.2 A previous investigation undertaken by Northern Foundations Ltd (Ref: SI 7035, July

1998) obtained geotechnical information on site, however only one borehole was

located near the currently proposed building. This borehole encountered made

ground down to 1.40m bgl, an SPT N value of 4 was achieved within the underlying

natural strata at 1.50m bgl. Therefore an SPT N value of 4 has been selected as a

characteristic N value. Based on the correlation of Peck, this gives a characteristic

phi angle of 28°.

6.3 Foundations

6.3.1 The most suitable foundations for the proposed development are considered pad

and strip foundations, founding within the slightly clayey gravelly sand.

6.3.2 Based on the data from the previous investigation, for a 1m wide pad founding

within the natural strata at 1.50m bgl a bearing capacity of 160kN/m2 is achievable.

6.3.3 Due to the low availability of geotechnical data, a presumed bearing value has been

taken from Tomlinson (2001). These values were calculated based on pad

foundations at 0.75m bgl. Based on our findings, founding at 0.75m bgl would place

the foundation within the slightly clayey gravelly sand, this would give a presumed

bearing capacity of 150kN/m2 for a 1m wide pad, which is in line with the

recommendations of the previous investigation.

6.3.4 Therefore based on the current information a presumed bearing pressure not

exceeding 150kN/m2 may be adopted.

DI/C3977/7959



6.3.5 Foundations will need to be taken to the underside of any made ground to found on

undisturbed natural ground, natural ground is anticipated to be encountered from

between approximately 0.30m and 0.40m bgl.

6.3.6 It is possible that a change in bearing stratum across the footprint of the building

may occur. If any sudden changes from clay to sand or gravel are encountered

reference should be made to a suitably qualified engineer, recommendations may

include that the foundations should either be deepened to found on the same

stratum, or reinforced to reduce the potential for differential settlement.

6.3.7 The ea i g st atu should e i spe ted fo soft spots ithi the atu al la strata, resulting for instance from localised groundwater perched within the

overlying fill materials. Any such soft spots should be dealt with in accordance with

good site practice.

6.3.8 The culvert underlying the site will need to be considered when designing the

foundations. It is unadvisable for construction to be undertaken over the culvert,

foundations will either need to be taken to below the base of the culvert or situated

3 to 4 times the breadth of the foundation away from the culvert, this would ensure

that the culvert is outside the pressure bulb of the foundation and that no load is

being transferred to the culvert.

6.3.9 Should the culvert be redirected then the area should be backfilled with material

suitably compacted to withstand the anticipated loads.

6.3.10 If the ground conditions encountered during the construction phase differ

significantly to the conditions encountered during construction, work should cease

and BSL contacted for further advice.

6.3.11 During the construction phase supervision should be on a continuous basis to check

the design assumptions are correct and construction conforms to design.

Supervision should include inspections, Control Ground Investigations and

monitoring.

6.4 Coal Mining Risk

6.4.1 Coal was encountered in all boreholes, generally as three seams. The thickness of

the seams varied between 0.5m and 1.0m thick, but was most commonly 0.50m

thick.

6.4.2 All the coal encountered was intact and no dropping of rods or loss of flush, which

would indicate voids, was observed while drilling through the coal seams. Due to

this it appears unlikely that the coal underlying the site has been worked. We

therefore consider the risk from unrecorded workings in the area of the proposed

building to be low.

6.4.3 CIRIA SP32 states that a rock cover of ten times the thickness of the coal seam is

sufficient to stop the upwards migration of the collapse of workings, preventing

subsidence from affecting the surface. The shallowest coal seam, 0.50m thick, has

a rock cover of between 7.50m and 13.00m, and the thickest coal seam, 1.00m, has

a cover of 12.30m bgl. Therefore, should the coal seams have been worked then

DI/C3977/7959



there would be a sufficient thickness of cover to prevent the proposed development

from being at risk from mining related subsidence.

6.4.4 The investigation of mine entries was limited due to the investigation method used,

however given the depth to the coal underlying the site it is considered unlikely that

there would be unrecorded mine entries on site, as it would have been historically

difficult to mine by artisanal methods to these depths. Additionally, the nearest

mine entry is recorded by the Coal Authority to have been grouted. Therefore, the

risk from mine entries is considered low.

6.4.5 No gases we detected during drilling and the bedrock is overlain by a relatively thick

layer of clay, which would prevent the migration of ground gases, providing this layer

is not penetrated or compromised (e.g. by piles or VSCs), therefore the risk from

mine gas is considered low.

Coal Mining Issue Risk Assessment

Recorded Coal Workings Low

Unrecorded Coal Workings Low

Recorded Mine Entries Low

Unrecorded Mine Entries Low

Coal Mining Geology (fissures) Low

Records of mine gas emissions Low

Recorded coal mining surface hazard Low

Surface mining (opencast workings) Low

6.5 Building Near Trees

6.5.1 If foundation excavations encounter cohesive strata in the vicinity of existing,

proposed or recently removed trees, foundations should be adjusted in full

accordance with current guidance. All foundations should be deepened below roots

of greater than 5mm diameter during excavations for footings

6.5.2 A survey of all trees and hedges within an influencing distance of proposed

foundations should be undertaken to identify tree species and heights. This

information will be required in order to assess the effects of trees on the cohesive

strata.

6.5.3 Where foundation depths due to trees already present or recently removed exceeds

1.50m there is a possibility for heave to occur on removal of the tree. NHBC

Guidance states that compressible material or void former is required against the

inside face of all external wall foundations.

6.6 Floor Slabs

6.6.1 Ground bearing floor slabs may generally be adopted at the site provided that once

finished levels have been established, less than 600mm of suitable appropriately

compacted granular material exists beneath the slab. Due to the requirements for

full radon precautions reference should be made to BRE211:2015 to ensure the floor

slab is designed to incorporate all the necessary protection measures.

DI/C3977/7959



6.7 Construction

6.7.1 Instability of excavations through natural soils is not anticipated provided they are

not exposed to adverse weather conditions for any substantial period of time.

Instability of the Made Ground should be allowed for. All excavations should be

a ied out i a o da e ith CI‘IA ‘epo t T e hi g P a ti e .

6.7.2 Excavation depths should generally be readily achieved using conventional plant

(JCB or similar) although high specification plant (tracked 360o or similar) is

recommended to maintain the build programme. Breaking equipment may also be

required locally to penetrate old foundations associated with former construction.

6.7.3 Characteristic values for sulphate content and pH of the natural and made ground

have been calculated from the mean of the results. The natural strata had a sulphate

concentration of 0.1406g/l and a pH of 8.8, and the made ground had a sulphate

concentration of 0.3630g/l and a pH of 8.2.

6.7.4 Based on the finding of the groundwater level monitoring it is considered that the

groundwater is perched and is therefore static.

6.7.5 The results of laboratory pH and sulphate content indicate that ACEC Class AC-1s

and sulphate class DS-1 conditions prevail in accordance with BRE Special Digest 1

Co ete i agg essi e g ou d . The spe ifi o ete i es the Desig Concrete Class) to be used on site will be determined by the site specific concrete

requirements in terms of the durability and structural performance. These are

assessed in terms of the Structural Performance Level (SPL) and any need for

Additional Protective Measures (APM) detailed in Part D of BRE Special Digest 1 with

further guidance in Pt E and F.

6.8 Highways

6.8.1 CBR values of 2% - 5% are likely to be achieved in undisturbed natural soils for

pavement design purposes, however this should be confirmed by in-situ testing at

sub-base level by a specialist geotechnical engineer.

6.8.2 Some reengineering of the subgrade is likely to be required prior to highway

construction to achieve the required design CBR value.

6.9 Soakaways

6.9.1 Due to the ground conditions, drainage to soakaways may be feasible, however this

will need to be confirmed by in-situ testing.

6.9.2 If drainage of the highway to soakaways is to be considered it is suggested this is

discussed with the Local Authority at the earliest opportunity to confirm the

adequacy of proposed testing and to allow their inspection of any test results.

6.10 Retaining Wall

6.10.1 It is understood that the retaining structure in the south of the site will be receded

to the rear of the proposed development.

DI/C3977/7959



6.10.2 It was outside the scope of this investigation to undertake a detailed inspection of

the construction or a structural inspection of the retaining wall and BSL recommends

inspection of the walls by a structural engineer to assess the condition and

determine what, if any, specialist requirements there are in respect to demolition

and removal. Inadequate demolition may result in the instability of soils behind the

wall, potentially resulting in dangerous collapse.

6.10.3 Where the existing retaining wall is to be retained, care should be taken in the design

of the proposed development to ensure that the safety and stability of retaining

walls is not compromised. This work should be undertaken by a suitably competent

engineer, particularly where they form, or could influence, site boundaries.

DI/C3977/7959



7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

7.1 Contamination

7.1.1 Testing did not identify elevated contaminants in respect to commercial screening

values for any of the tested metals, PAHs, or phenols.

7.1.2 Asbestos was not detected in any of the made ground samples.

7.1.3 No visual or olfactory evidence of contamination was observed during the

investigation.

Permanent Ground Gases

7.1.4 Interim ground gas monitoring results indicate that site falls within CS1 in respect to

carbon dioxide and methane, however this should be confirmed following the

completion of the ground gas monitoring program.

7.1.5 The site falls in an area requiring full radon precautions. The radon precautions

would provide some protection against carbon dioxide and methane; however care

should be taken to select the correct membrane should either of these gases be

identified as a problem as some radon membranes are not considered suitably

impervious to these gases.

7.2 Qualitative Risk Assessment

7.2.1 The risk assessment methodology used in this instance is based on Source – Pathway

– Receptor (SPR) philosophy. The source is the presence of contamination, or

substance/event likely to cause harm. The receptor is the target that may be

detrimentally affected by the source. The pathway is the means of the

contamination to move from the source to the receptor. Where any of these three

factors are removed there is deemed to be no risk. Further guidance on the process

is presented in Appendix F and Appendix G.

7.2.2 The CSMs have been revised based on the findings of the site investigation and

laboratory testing results.

Human Health

Potential Source Potential

Pathway

Potential

Receptor

Likelihood Severity Level of Risk

ON-SITE

Made Ground

Heavy metals,

hydrocarbons,

Asbestos.

Ingestion, direct

contact, inhalation of

dusts.

End-Users Unlikely Medium Low

Ground Gas

Carbon dioxide,

methane, radon.

Accumulation of gases

in confined spaces. End-Users

Low

Likelihood Severe Moderate

OFF-SITE

DI/C3977/7959



Potential Source Potential

Pathway

Potential

Receptor


Historical

Industrial Land

Uses

Heavy metals,

hydrocarbons,

solvents, resins.

Ingestion, direct

contact, inhalation of

dusts and vapours.

End Users Unlikely Medium Low

Human Health Justification

7.2.3 No elevated contaminants were present within the shallow made ground and

natural strata, additionally the majority of this area will be covered by hardstanding

or the proposed building. Therefore there is no source and no pathway hence the

risk is considered low.

7.2.4 Interim ground gas results indicate the site falls within CS1, however the site is also

within an area requiring full radon gas precautions, therefore the risk is considered

moderate.

7.2.5 The risk from off-site sources is considered low due to the lack of contamination

identified on-site and due to the majority of the site being covered by hardstanding,

breaking any pathways. Additionally due to the proposed end-use site end-users are

unlikely to spend notable amounts of time within the proposed soft landscaping

areas and are unlikely to undertake actions that would disturb on-site soils.

Controlled Waters

Potential Source Potential Pathway Potential

Receptor


Made Ground Migration through

groundwater or

granular soils

Secondary (A)

Superficial

Aquifer

Unlikely Medium Low

Migration through

groundwater or

granular soils

Secondary (A)

Bedrock

Aquifer

Unlikely Medium Low

Migration through

groundwater or

granular soils

Culvert Unlikely Mild Very Low

Site End-Use

Hydrocarbons

Migration through

groundwater or

granular soils

Secondary (A)

Superficial

Aquifer

Unlikely Medium Low

Migration through

groundwater or

granular soils

Secondary (A)

Bedrock

Aquifer

Unlikely Medium Low

Migration through

groundwater or

granular soils

Culvert Low

Likelihood Mild Low

Controlled Waters Justification

7.2.6 As there are no elevated contaminants within the shallow strata it is considered

unlikely that the superficial aquifer would be impacted by significant concentrations

of contaminants, additionally the hardstanding covering the site would prevent the

infiltration of rainwater mobilising any contaminants. It is also considered unlikely

DI/C3977/7959



that the bedrock would be impacted due to the relatively thick layer of clay

underlying the site. Therefore the risk posed to the underlying aquifers by the on-

site made ground is considered low.

7.2.7 The risk to the culvert from the on-site made ground is considered very low due to

the lack of contamination within the soil, the hardstanding covering the site, and the

culvert being concrete lined.

7.2.8 There is considered to be a low risk posed to the superficial and bedrock aquifers by

the site end-use due to hardstanding preventing the infiltration of any

contaminants.

7.2.9 The risk to the culvert from site end-use is considered low due to the culvert being

lined with concrete, however there is the possibility for contaminants to enter the

culvert via the inspection chamber manhole covers.

7.3 Remedial Measures

7.3.1 Full radon precautions are required on site and should be designed in accordance

with BR211 (2015).

7.4 Asbestos

7.4.1 The investigation of asbestos issues within structures was beyond the scope of this

report. However, guidance from UK Government indicates that asbestos should be

assumed to be present in buildings unless proven otherwise.

7.4.2 Any asbestos within structures will require removal prior to re-development. This

will need to be done by a suitably qualified experienced and licensed contractor,

who ensures that adequate PPE is provided to operatives, and that all the relevant

legislation is adhered to.

7.5 Health and Safety Issues

7.5.1 During the reclamation and construction phases of the site development it will be

necessary to protect the health and safety of site personnel. The risk to construction

and ground workers is assessed in the table below:

Potential

Source

Potential Pathway Potential

Receptor


ON-SITE

Made Ground Ingestion, direct

contact, inhalation

of dusts.

Construction

workers Unlikely Medium Low

Discussion

7.5.2 General guidance on these matters is given in the Health and Safety Executive (HSE)

do u e t P ote tio of Wo ke s a d the Ge e al Pu li du i g the ‘ede elop e t of Co ta i ated La d . I su a , the follo i g easu es a e suggested to provide a minimum level of protection:

DI/C3977/7959



• All ground workers should be issued with the relevant protective clothing,

footwear and gloves. These protective items should not be removed from the

site and personnel should be instructed as to why and how they are to be used.

• Hand-washing and boot-washing facilities should be provided.

• Care should be taken to minimise the potential for off-site migration of

contamination by the provision of dust suppression control and wheel cleaning

equipment during the construction works.

• Good practices relating to personal hygiene should be adopted on the site.

• The contractor shall satisfy the Health and Safety Executive with regard to any

other matters concerning the health, safety and welfare of persons on the site.

7.6 Waste

7.6.1 Details of how material should be classified for waste disposal are presented in

Appendix H.

Waste Classification - Total Concentrations

7.6.2 Based on the HazWasteOnline assessment tool the made ground and natural soils

have been classified as non-hazardous.

Waste Acceptance Criteria

7.6.3 The WAC testing has revealed that if the end disposal route of the natural strata is

landfill the material would be accepted at an Inert Landfill.

7.6.4 The possibility of automatic inert classification of the natural soils should be

explored in accordance with Section 4.3 of the EA guidance document. The Council

Decision includes a list of wastes in Section 2.1.1 of the document that are assumed

to be inert and therefore acceptable at a landfill for inert waste without testing, this

is the case if:

• They are single stream waste of a single waste type (although different

waste types from the list may be accepted together if they are from a single

source) and

• There is no suspicion of material or substances such as metals, asbestos,

plastics, chemicals, etc to an extent which increases the risk associated with

the waste sufficiently to justify contamination and they do not contain other

their disposal in other classes of landfill.

General

7.6.5 If any gross hydrocarbon contaminated material is encountered during the

construction phase, it is possible that this may be classified as hazardous and testing

should be undertaken at that time.

7.6.6 Where it is necessary to dispose material off site it is recommended that materials

are segregated and where necessary sufficient time is allowed to further classify the

material properly, including discussion with landfill sites and waste transfer stations

to find the best disposal route.

7.6.7 As a significant proportion of the soils likely to be generated on site are clean it is

recommended that where possible that the soils could be recycled at a suitable local

waste treatment plant or transfer station rather than a landfill disposal route.

DI/C3977/7959



7.6.8 If the reuse of soils is proposed on the site this should be done in accordance with

the CL:AI‘E De elop e t I dust Code of P a ti e fo the Defi itio of Waste (CL:AIRE CoP). Further guidance is provided on this in Appendix I. Any re-use scheme

should be designed to minimise disposal costs.

7.7 Compliance

7.7.1 It is recommended that the approval of the Local Authority is obtained for to the

proposed remedial scheme prior to any irrevocable action being taken.

7.7.2 Once the above body had approved the remedial proposals, a ground gas

verification plan should be produced once the gas protection measures have been

designed. This will give guidance to enable a suitably qualified contractor to carry

out the works and specify the methods of verification in order to achieve regulatory

sign off. Verification should be carried out by an independent suitably qualified

engineer.

DI/C3977/7959



8.0 CONCLUSIONS

8.1 Summary

Environmental

8.1.1 Chemical testing did not identify any heavy metals, PAHs or phenols elevated above

commercial screening values.

8.1.2 Asbestos was not detected in any of the made ground sample.

8.1.3 The risk to site end-users from on-site and off-site sources of contamination are

considered low due to the lack of contamination identified on-site.

8.1.4 Interim ground gas monitoring results indicate site end-users are not at risk from

carbon dioxide or methane. The site lies in an area requiring full radon precautions.

8.1.5 The risk to controlled waters is considered very low to low due to the lack of on-site

contamination and the hardstanding reducing the likelihood of the infiltration and

mobilisation of contaminants.

8.1.6 Classification of the on-site soils indicates that the made ground and natural strata

are non-hazardous and would likely be accepted at an inert waste landfill. It is

recommended that the proposed works be designed to reduce the amount of soil

going to landfill.

Geotechnical

8.1.7 The most suitable foundations for the proposed development are considered to be

pad and strip foundations founding within the slightly clayey gravelly sand

encountered from between 0.30m and 0.40m bgl. A bearing capacity of 150kN/m2

is likely to be achieved within this strata. The construction of the foundation should

account for the position of the on-site culvert.

8.1.8 Ground bearing floor slabs would be suitable on-site and would need to be designed

to accommodate full radon precautions.

8.1.9 Past coal mining is not considered to pose a risk to future on-site development.

8.1.10 Soakaways may be feasible on-site however this would need to be confirmed by in-

situ testing.

8.1.11 CBR values of 2% - 5% are likely to be achieved, however this should be confirmed

by in-situ testing at sub-base level by a specialist geotechnical engineer.

8.1.12 The retaining wall along the southern boundary of the site should be inspected by a

structural engineer prior to be any work being undertaken by in the area of the

retaining wall.

8.2 Further Work

8.2.1 The following further work is considered necessary to progress the site to

construction phase:

DI/C3977/7959



• Completion of gas monitoring programme.

• Demolition Asbestos survey.

• Tree survey by qualified arboriculturist.

• Detailed foundation design.

• Production of ground gas protection measures verification plan.

DI/C3977/7959



9 REFERENCES

1. British Standards Institution. Soils for civil engineering purposes. BS1377:1990.

2. British Standards Institution. Investigation of Potentially Contaminated sites - code

of practice. BS 10175:2011 (2nd Ed).

3. B itish “ta da ds I stitutio Code of Practice for Site Investigations B“ :2015

4. B itish “ta da ds I stitutio Geotechnical investigation and testing – Identification

and classification of soil B“ EN I“O :2002.

5. B itish “ta da ds I stitutio Geotechnical investigation and testing – Identification

and classification of rock B“ EN I“O : .

6. B‘E ‘epo t B‘ Radon – Guida e o prote ti e easures for e uildi gs’ 2015 Edition.

7. BRE Special Digest 1: Concrete in Aggressive Ground rd Ed 2005.

8. CI‘IA P ote ti g de elop e t f o etha e .

9. CI‘IA Metha e I estigatio “t ategies .

10. CI‘IA I te p eti g easu e e ts of gas i the g ou d .

11. CI‘IA ‘isk assess e t fo etha e a d othe gases f o the g ou d .

12. CI‘IA Co ta i ated La d ‘isk Assess e t – A guide to good p a ti e .

13. CI‘IA C Assessi g ‘isks Posed Haza dous G ou d Gases to Buildi gs .

14. Wilso & Ca d Proposed method classifying gassing sites Ground Engineering

1999.

15. B“ : Code of practise for the design of protective measures for methane

a d ar o dioxide grou d gases for e uildi gs’

16. The Hazardous Waste (England) Regulations 2005.

17. E i o e t Age Haza dous Waste: Guidance on the classification and

assess e t of aste” WM3 ver 1 May 2015.

18. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) March 2012

19. DETR. Circular 02/2000 Contaminated Land.

20. E i o e t Age , Usi g “oil Guideli e Values .

21. E i o e t Age , Updated Te h i al Ba kg ou d to the CLEA odel .

22. E i o e t Age , Hu a health to i ologi al assess e t of o ta i a ts i soil .

23. Depa t e t of the E i o e t, , CL‘ ‘epo t No A f a e o k fo assessi g the impact of contaminated land on groundwater and su fa e ate .

24. Depa t e t of the E i o e t, , CL‘ ‘epo t No Guida e o P eli i a “ite I spe tio of Co ta i ated La d .

25. Depa t e t of the E i o e t, , CL‘ ‘epo t No Do u e ta esea h o I dust ial “ites .

DI/C3977/7959



26. Department of the Envi o e t, , CL‘ ‘epo t No “a pli g “t ategies fo Co ta i ated La d .

27. DEFRA and the Environment Agency, 2002- , CL‘ “oil Guideli e Value ‘epo ts fo I di idual “oil Co ta i a ts .

28. DEF‘A a d the E i o e t Age , , CL‘ ‘epo t No Model Procedures for

the Ma age e t of Co ta i ated La d .

29. Nathanail, C. P., McCaffrey, C., Gillett, A., Ogden, R. C. and Nathanail, J.F. 2015. The

LQM/CIEH S4ULs for Human Health Risk Assessment. Land Quality Press,

Nottingham.

30. CL:AI‘E, De elop e t of Category 4 Screening Levels for Assessment of Land

Affe ted Co ta i atio .

31. Health & “afet E e uti e, . P ote tio of Wo ke s & the Ge e al Pu li du i g the De elop e t of Co ta i ated La d .

32. E i o e t Age Guida e o the lassifi atio and assessment of waste (1st

editio Te h i al Guida e WM

33. CL:AI‘E The Definition of Waste: Development Industry Code of Practice Ve sio 2 March 2011.

34. CI‘IA Asbestos in soil and made ground: a guide to understanding and managing

risks C 2014

35. Control of Asbestos Regulations (CAR) 2012

36. Specification for Highways Works – Series 600 Earthworks November 2006.

37. Tomlinson, M.J., Fou datio Desig a d Co st u tio . 7th Edition. Pearson

Education Ltd, Essex.

DI/C3977/7959

Geo-Environmental Assessment Report Aldi Stores Ltd


DRAWINGS

Drawn By: BM Checked By: AJS

ALDI STORES LTD

Site Location Plan

SITE

Drawing Number C3977/01

Scale: NTS

Chester Street, Mold

Brownfield

Solutions

Limited

Chester Street Mold

ALDI STORES LTD

Extract From Coal Authority

Interactive Map Viewer

Drawing No. C3977/03

Scale: NTS

Drawn By: JMC Checked By: AJS

Site Boundary

Location of

mine shafts

Area of Probable

Workings

DI/C3977/7959



APPENDIX A

Exploratory Hole Logs

Well WaterStrikes

Sample and In Situ Testing

Depth (m) Type ResultsDepth

(m)

0.050.30

1.30

8.50

13.00

15.50

16.00

16.50

18.00

18.60

Level(m) Legend Stratum Description

MADE GROUND: Tarmac.MADE GROUND: Grey gravelly sand. Sand is fine to coarse grained. Gravel is subangular fine to medium of limestone.Brown orange SAND and GRAVEL. Sand is fine to coarse grained. Gravel is subangular fine to medium of siltstone.Brown sandy CLAY with gravel bands.

Brown SANDSTONE/SILTSTONE.

Grey SILTSTONE.

Brown SILTSTONE.

Firm COAL.

Grey SILTSTONE.

Firm COAL.

Grey SILTSTONE.

Continued on Next Sheet

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

0.40 ES

Borehole LogBorehole No.

RO101Sheet 1 of 2

Project Name: ALDI, CHESTER STREETProject No.C3977

Co-ords:Hole Type

RO

Location: MOLD Level:Scale1:100

Client: ALDI STORES LTD Dates: 01/10/2018Logged By

DI/DRILLER

Remarks1. Hand dug pit to 1.20m bgl. 2. No gases detected during drilling. 3. No loss of flush or dropping of rods observed. 4. Standpipe installed to 5.00m bgl; 1.00m plain, 4.00m slotted.

Well WaterStrikes



(m)

20.80

21.80

28.00

28.50

30.00


Grey SILTSTONE.

Firm COAL.

Grey MUDSTONE/SANDSTONE.

Firm COAL.


End of Borehole at 30.00m

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40


RO101Sheet 2 of 2


Co-ords:Hole Type

RO



DI/DRILLER


Well WaterStrikes



(m)

0.100.40

1.00

6.50

12.50

15.30

15.80

17.00

17.50


MADE GROUND: Tarmac.MADE GROUND: Light grey brown gravelly sand. Sand is fine to coarse grained. Gravel is subangular fine to medium of limestone. Brown slightly clayey slightly gravelly SAND. Sand is fine to medium grained. Gravel is rounded to subrouneded fine to medium of siltstone.

Becoming clayey from 0.50m bgl.Brown sandy CLAY with sand and gravel bands.


Grey SANDSTONE/SILTSTONE.

Firm COAL.

Grey SANDSTONE.

Firm COAL.

Grey SANDSTONE.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

0.30 ES0.50 ES


RO102Sheet 1 of 2


Co-ords:Hole Type

RO



DI/DRILLER


Well WaterStrikes



(m)

22.50

23.00

25.00

25.80

30.00


Grey SANDSTONE.

Firm COAL.


Firm COAL.



21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40


RO102Sheet 2 of 2


Co-ords:Hole Type

RO



DI/DRILLER


Well WaterStrikes



(m)

0.050.30

1.30

6.50

12.50

14.00

16.00

16.60


MADE GROUND: Tarmac.MADE GROUND: Light brown gravelly sand. Sand is fine to coarse grained. Gravel is subangular fine to medium of siltstone.Brown orange slightly clayey gravelly SAND. Sand is fine to coarse. Gravel is subangular to angular fine to coarse of siltstone, sandstone and limestone. Brown sandy CLAY with sand and gravel bands.



Brown SANDSTONE.

Firm COAL.

Grey SANDSTONE.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

0.40 ES


RO103Sheet 1 of 2


Co-ords:Hole Type

RO



DI/DRILLER


Well WaterStrikes



(m)

21.50

22.30

23.50

24.00

28.00

28.50

30.00


Grey SANDSTONE.

Firm COAL.

Grey SANDSTONE.

Firm COAL.


Firm COAL.



21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40


RO103Sheet 2 of 2


Co-ords:Hole Type

RO



DI/DRILLER


Well WaterStrikes



(m)

0.050.40

1.40

5.00

14.00

14.50

18.00

18.50

20.00


MADE GROUND: Tarmac.MADE GROUND: Light grey slighlty clayey gravelly sand. Sand is fine to coarse grained. Gravel is subangular fine to medium of limestone.Brown orange slighlty clayey gravelly SAND. Sand is fine to coarse grained. Gravel is subangular to angular fine to coarse of siltstone, sandstone and limestone. Low cobble content of siltstone, sandstone and limestone.Brown sandy CLAY with sand and gravel bands.


SANDSTONE with COAL bands.


Firm COAL.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

0.20 D0.50 ES


RO104Sheet 1 of 2


Co-ords:Hole Type

RO



DI/DRILLER


Well WaterStrikes



(m)

20.80

21.50

22.00

28.50

29.00

40.00


Firm COAL.


Brown SANDSTONE.

Grey SANDSTONE.

Firm COAL.



21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40


RO104Sheet 2 of 2


Co-ords:Hole Type

RO



DI/DRILLER


Well WaterStrikes



(m)

0.050.40

1.40

4.50

13.00

14.00

14.50

18.00

18.60


MADE GROUND: Tarmac.MADE GROUND: Light grey gravelly sand. SAND is fine to coarse grained. Gravel is subangular fine to medium of limestone.Brown orange slighlt clayey gravelly SAND. Sand is fine to coarse. Gravel is subangular to angular fine to coarse of siltstone, sandstone and limestone. Low cobble content of siltstone, sandstone and limestone.Brown sandy CLAY with sand and gravel bands.



Firm COAL.


Firm COAL.

Grey SANDSTONE.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

0.10 ES0.50 ES


RO105Sheet 1 of 2


Co-ords:Hole Type

RO



DI/DRILLER


Well WaterStrikes



(m)

21.50

22.30

26.50

27.00

37.50

38.00

40.00


Grey SANDSTONE.

Firm COAL.


Firm COAL.


Firm COAL.



21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40


RO105Sheet 2 of 2


Co-ords:Hole Type

RO



DI/DRILLER


DI/C3977/7959



APPENDIX B

Chemical Testing Results

Dylan Ingman

t: 01923 225404f: 01923 237404

e: [email protected] e:

Project / Site name: Samples received on: 04/10/2018

Your job number: C3977 Samples instructed on: 04/10/2018

Your order number: C3977-5956-DI Analysis completed by: 11/10/2018

Report Issue Number: 1 Report issued on: 11/10/2018

Samples Analysed:

Signed:

Reporting ManagerFor & on behalf of i2 Analytical Ltd.

Standard Geotechnical, Asbestos and Chemical Testing Laboratory located at: ul. Pionierów 39, 41 -711 Ruda Śląska, Poland.

Accredited tests are defined within the report, opinions and interpretations expressed herein are outside the scope of accreditation.

Standard sample disposal times, unless otherwise agreed with the laboratory, are : soils - 4 weeks from reportingleachates - 2 weeks from reportingwaters - 2 weeks from reportingasbestos - 6 months from reporting

Excel copies of reports are only valid when accompanied by this PDF certificate.

Brownfield Solutions LtdWilliam Smith House173 - 183 Witton StreetNorthwichCheshireCW9 5LP

i2 Analytical Ltd.7 Woodshots Meadow,Croxley Green Business Park,Watford, Herts, WD18 8YS

Analytical Report Number : 18-13003

[email protected]

Jordan Hill

8 soil samples


This certificate should not be reproduced, except in full, without the express permission of the laboratory.

The results included within the report are representative of the samples submitted for analysis.

Iss No 18-13003-1 Aldi, Chester Street, Mold C3977

Page 1 of 7

Analytical Report Number: 18-13003

Project / Site name: Aldi, Chester Street, Mold

Your Order No: C3977-5956-DI

Lab Sample Number 1060532 1060533 1060534 1060535 1060536Sample Reference RO101 RO102 RO102 RO103 RO104Sample Number None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None SuppliedDepth (m) 0.40 0.30 0.50 0.40 0.50Date Sampled 01/10/2018 01/10/2018 01/10/2018 02/10/2018 02/10/2018Time Taken None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied

Analytical Parameter

(Soil Analysis)

Un

its

Lim

it of

de

tectio

n

Accre

dita

tion

Sta

tus

Stone Content % 0.1 NONE < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1Moisture Content % N/A NONE 5.4 1.4 8.5 8.6 7.2Total mass of sample received kg 0.001 NONE 1.0 1.2 0.91 1.2 1.2

Asbestos in Soil Type N/A ISO 17025 - Not-detected - - -

General Inorganics

pH - Automated pH Units N/A MCERTS 8.7 8.0 7.7 10.3 8.4Free Cyanide mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1 < 1 - < 1 < 1Water Soluble SO4 16hr extraction (2:1 Leachate Equivalent) g/l 0.00125 MCERTS 0.049 0.87 0.32 0.19 0.12Water Soluble SO4 16hr extraction (2:1 Leachate Equivalent) mg/l 1.25 MCERTS 49.1 872 - 191 115Organic Matter % 0.1 MCERTS 0.5 0.6 - 0.6 0.5

Phenols by HPLC

Catechol mg/kg 0.1 ISO 17025 < 0.10 < 0.10 - < 0.10 < 0.10Resorcinol mg/kg 0.1 ISO 17025 < 0.10 < 0.10 - < 0.10 < 0.10Cresols (o-, m-, p-) mg/kg 0.3 ISO 17025 < 0.30 < 0.30 - < 0.30 < 0.30Total Naphthols (sum of 1- and 2- Naphthol) mg/kg 0.2 ISO 17025 < 0.20 < 0.20 - < 0.20 < 0.202-Isopropylphenol mg/kg 0.1 ISO 17025 < 0.10 < 0.10 - < 0.10 < 0.10Phenol mg/kg 0.1 ISO 17025 < 0.10 < 0.10 - < 0.10 < 0.10Trimethylphenol (2,3,5-) mg/kg 0.1 ISO 17025 < 0.10 < 0.10 - < 0.10 < 0.10Total Xylenols and Ethylphenols mg/kg 0.3 ISO 17025 < 0.30 < 0.30 - < 0.30 < 0.30

Total Phenols

Total Phenols (HPLC) mg/kg 1.3 ISO 17025 < 1.3 < 1.3 - < 1.3 < 1.3

Speciated PAHs

Naphthalene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05Acenaphthylene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05Acenaphthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05Fluorene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05Phenanthrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05Anthracene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05Fluoranthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05Pyrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05Chrysene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05Benzo(b)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05Benzo(k)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05Dibenz(a,h)anthracene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05Benzo(ghi)perylene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05

Total PAH

Speciated Total EPA-16 PAHs mg/kg 0.8 MCERTS < 0.80 < 0.80 - < 0.80 < 0.80




Page 2 of 7




Lab Sample Number 1060532 1060533 1060534 1060535 1060536Sample Reference RO101 RO102 RO102 RO103 RO104Sample Number None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None SuppliedDepth (m) 0.40 0.30 0.50 0.40 0.50Date Sampled 01/10/2018 01/10/2018 01/10/2018 02/10/2018 02/10/2018Time Taken None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied


(Soil Analysis)

Un

its

Lim

it of

de

tectio

n

Accre

dita

tion

Sta

tus

Heavy Metals / Metalloids

Arsenic (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 5.0 3.1 - 5.7 6.9Cadmium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS 0.3 0.3 - < 0.2 < 0.2Chromium (hexavalent) mg/kg 1.2 MCERTS < 1.2 < 1.2 - < 1.2 < 1.2Chromium (III) mg/kg 1 NONE 7.9 8.6 - 8.2 12Chromium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 7.9 8.5 - 8.2 12Copper (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 11 8.2 - 22 16Lead (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 25 15 - 140 93Mercury (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.3 MCERTS < 0.3 < 0.3 - < 0.3 < 0.3Nickel (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 2.8 6.0 - 4.6 9.2Selenium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0 - < 1.0 < 1.0Zinc (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 8.2 7.8 - 14 13




Page 3 of 7




Lab Sample Number

Sample Reference

Sample Number

Depth (m)

Date Sampled

Time Taken


(Soil Analysis)

Un

its

Lim

it of

de

tectio

n

Accre

dita

tion

Sta

tus

Stone Content % 0.1 NONE

Moisture Content % N/A NONE

Total mass of sample received kg 0.001 NONE

Asbestos in Soil Type N/A ISO 17025

General Inorganics

pH - Automated pH Units N/A MCERTS

Free Cyanide mg/kg 1 MCERTSWater Soluble SO4 16hr extraction (2:1 Leachate Equivalent) g/l 0.00125 MCERTSWater Soluble SO4 16hr extraction (2:1 Leachate Equivalent) mg/l 1.25 MCERTS

Organic Matter % 0.1 MCERTS

Phenols by HPLC

Catechol mg/kg 0.1 ISO 17025

Resorcinol mg/kg 0.1 ISO 17025

Cresols (o-, m-, p-) mg/kg 0.3 ISO 17025

Total Naphthols (sum of 1- and 2- Naphthol) mg/kg 0.2 ISO 17025

2-Isopropylphenol mg/kg 0.1 ISO 17025

Phenol mg/kg 0.1 ISO 17025

Trimethylphenol (2,3,5-) mg/kg 0.1 ISO 17025Total Xylenols and Ethylphenols mg/kg 0.3 ISO 17025

Total Phenols

Total Phenols (HPLC) mg/kg 1.3 ISO 17025

Speciated PAHs

Naphthalene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS

Acenaphthylene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS

Acenaphthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS

Fluorene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS

Phenanthrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS

Anthracene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS

Fluoranthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS

Pyrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS

Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS

Chrysene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS

Benzo(b)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS

Benzo(k)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS

Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS

Benzo(ghi)perylene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS

Total PAH

Speciated Total EPA-16 PAHs mg/kg 0.8 MCERTS

1060537 1060538 1060539RO104 RO105 RO105

None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied0.20 0.10 0.50

02/10/2018 02/10/2018 02/10/2018None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied

< 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.13.8 3.0 110.69 1.3 1.3

Not-detected Not-detected -

8.2 8.8 8.5- < 1 -

0.19 0.029 0.024

- 28.9 -- 1.9 -

- < 0.10 -- < 0.10 -- < 0.30 -- < 0.20 -- < 0.10 -- < 0.10 -- < 0.10 -- < 0.30 -

- < 1.3 -

- 1.4 -- < 0.05 -- 0.34 -- 0.18 -- 0.35 -- < 0.05 -- 0.16 -- 0.19 -- < 0.05 -- < 0.05 -- < 0.05 -- < 0.05 -- < 0.05 -- < 0.05 -- < 0.05 -- < 0.05 -

- 2.61 -




Page 4 of 7




Lab Sample Number

Sample Reference

Sample Number

Depth (m)

Date Sampled

Time Taken


(Soil Analysis)

Un

its

Lim

it of

de

tectio

n

Accre

dita

tion

Sta

tus

Heavy Metals / Metalloids

Arsenic (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS

Cadmium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS

Chromium (hexavalent) mg/kg 1.2 MCERTS

Chromium (III) mg/kg 1 NONE

Chromium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS

Copper (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS

Lead (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS

Mercury (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.3 MCERTS

Nickel (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS

Selenium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS

Zinc (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS

1060537 1060538 1060539RO104 RO105 RO105

None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied0.20 0.10 0.50

02/10/2018 02/10/2018 02/10/2018None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied

- < 1.0 -- 0.3 -- < 1.2 -- 4.9 -- 4.9 -- 5.7 -- 18 -- < 0.3 -- 2.6 -- < 1.0 -- 4.8 -




Page 5 of 7



Lab Sample

Number

Sample

Reference

Sample

NumberDepth (m) Sample Description *

1060532 RO101 None Supplied 0.40 Light brown gravelly sand with rubble.1060533 RO102 None Supplied 0.30 Grey gravelly sand with rubble.1060534 RO102 None Supplied 0.50 Brown loam and sand with gravel and rubble.1060535 RO103 None Supplied 0.40 Light brown gravelly sand with rubble.1060536 RO104 None Supplied 0.50 Brown gravelly clay.1060537 RO104 None Supplied 0.20 Brown gravelly clay with rubble and tar.1060538 RO105 None Supplied 0.10 Brown gravelly clay with rubble and tar.1060539 RO105 None Supplied 0.50 Light brown gravelly clay.

* These descriptions are only intended to act as a cross check if sample identities are questioned. The major constituent of the sample is intended to act with respect to MCERTS validation. The laboratory is accredited for sand, clay and loam (MCERTS) soil types. Data for unaccredited types of solid should be interpreted with care.

Stone content of a sample is calculated as the % weight of the stones not passing a 10 mm sieve. Results are not corrected for stone content.




Page 6 of 7



Water matrix abbreviations: Surface Water (SW) Potable Water (PW) Ground Water (GW) Process Water (PrW)

Analytical Test Name Analytical Method Description Analytical Method ReferenceMethod

number

Wet / Dry

Analysis

Accreditation

Status

Asbestos identification in soil Asbestos Identification with the use of polarised light microscopy in conjunction with disperion staining techniques.

In house method based on HSG 248 A001-PL D ISO 17025

Cr (III) in soil In-house method by calculation from total Cr and Cr VI.

In-house method by calculation L080-PL W NONE

Free cyanide in soil Determination of free cyanide by distillation followed by colorimetry.

In-house method based on Examination of Water and Wastewater 20th Edition: Clesceri, Greenberg & Eaton (Skalar)

L080-PL W MCERTS

Hexavalent chromium in soil (Lower Level)

Determination of hexavalent chromium in soil by extraction in water then by acidification, addition of 1,5 diphenylcarbazide followed by colorimetry.

In-house method L080-PL W MCERTS

Metals in soil by ICP-OES Determination of metals in soil by aqua-regia digestion followed by ICP-OES.

In-house method based on MEWAM 2006 Methods for the Determination of Metals in Soil.

L038-PL D MCERTS

Moisture Content Moisture content, determined gravimetrically. In-house method based on BS1377 Part 2, 1990, Chemical and Electrochemical Tests

L019-UK/PL W NONE

Organic matter (Automated) in soil Determination of organic matter in soil by oxidising with potassium dichromate followed by titration with iron (II) sulphate.

BS1377 Part 3, 1990, Chemical and Electrochemical Tests""

L009-PL D MCERTS

pH in soil (automated) Determination of pH in soil by addition of water followed by automated electrometric measurement.

In-house method based on BS1377 Part 3, 1990, Chemical and Electrochemical Tests

L099-PL D MCERTS

Phenols, speciated, in soil, by HPLC Determination of speciated phenols by HPLC. In house method based on Blue Book Method.

L030-PL W ISO 17025

Speciated EPA-16 PAHs in soil Determination of PAH compounds in soil by extraction in dichloromethane and hexane followed by GC-MS with the use of surrogate and internal standards.

In-house method based on USEPA 8270 L064-PL D MCERTS

Stones content of soil Standard preparation for all samples unless otherwise detailed. Gravimetric determination of stone > 10 mm as % dry weight.

In-house method based on British Standard Methods and MCERTS requirements.

L019-UK/PL D NONE

Sulphate, water soluble, in soil (16hr extraction)

Determination of water soluble sulphate by ICP-OES. Results reported directly (leachate equivalent) and corrected for extraction ratio (soil equivalent).

In-house method based on BS1377 Part 3, 1990, Chemical and Electrochemical Tests, 2:1 water:soil extraction, analysis by ICP-OES.

L038-PL D MCERTS

For method numbers ending in 'UK' analysis have been carried out in our laboratory in the United Kingdom.

For method numbers ending in 'PL' analysis have been carried out in our laboratory in Poland.

Soil analytical results are expressed on a dry weight basis. Where analysis is carried out on as-received the results obtained are multiplied by a moisture

correction factor that is determined gravimetrically using the moisture content which is carried out at a maximum of 30oC.




Page 7 of 7

Dylan Ingman

t: 01923 225404f: 01923 237404

e: [email protected] e:

Project / Site name: Samples received on: 04/10/2018

Your job number: C3977 Samples instructed on: 04/10/2018

Your order number: C3977-5956-DI Analysis completed by: 15/10/2018

Report Issue Number: 1 Report issued on: 15/10/2018

Samples Analysed:

Signed:

Reporting ManagerFor & on behalf of i2 Analytical Ltd.

Standard Geotechnical, Asbestos and Chemical Testing Laboratory located at: ul. Pionierów 39, 41 -711 Ruda Śląska, Poland.

Accredited tests are defined within the report, opinions and interpretations expressed herein are outside the scope of accreditation.

Standard sample disposal times, unless otherwise agreed with the laboratory, are : soils - 4 weeks from reportingleachates - 2 weeks from reportingwaters - 2 weeks from reportingasbestos - 6 months from reporting

Excel copies of reports are only valid when accompanied by this PDF certificate.

[email protected]

Jordan Hill

1 WAC 10:1 Sample


Brownfield Solutions LtdWilliam Smith House173 - 183 Witton StreetNorthwichCheshireCW9 5LP

i2 Analytical Ltd.7 Woodshots Meadow,Croxley Green Business Park,Watford, Herts, WD18 8YS





Page 1 of 5

i2 Analytical7 Woodshots Meadow Telephone: 01923 225404Croxley Green Business Park Fax: 01923 237404Watford, WD18 8YS email:[email protected]

Report No:

Client:

Location

Sampling Date

Sample ID

Depth (m)

Solid Waste Analysis

TOC (%)** 0.3 3% 5% 6%

Loss on Ignition (%) ** 0.9 -- -- 10%

BTEX (µg/kg) ** < 10 6000 -- --Sum of PCBs (mg/kg) ** < 0.007 1 -- --

Mineral Oil (mg/kg) 75 500 -- --

Total PAH (WAC-17) (mg/kg) < 0.9 100 -- --

pH (units)** 8.4 -- >6 --

Acid Neutralisation Capacity (mol / kg) 17 -- To be evaluated To be evaluated

Arsenic * < 0.0011 < 0.0110 0.5 2 25

Barium * 0.0077 0.0727 20 100 300

Cadmium * < 0.0001 < 0.0008 0.04 1 5

Chromium * < 0.0004 < 0.0040 0.5 10 70

Copper * 0.0043 0.040 2 50 100

Mercury * < 0.0005 < 0.0050 0.01 0.2 2

Molybdenum * 0.0079 0.0742 0.5 10 30

Nickel * 0.0057 0.054 0.4 10 40

Lead * < 0.0010 < 0.010 0.5 10 50

Antimony * < 0.0017 < 0.017 0.06 0.7 5

Selenium * < 0.0040 < 0.040 0.1 0.5 7

Zinc * 0.0008 0.0080 4 50 200

Chloride * 17 160 800 4000 25000

Fluoride 0.38 3.6 10 150 500

Sulphate * 7.5 70 1000 20000 50000

TDS* 83 770 4000 60000 100000

Phenol Index (Monohydric Phenols) * < 0.010 < 0.10 1 - -

Leach Test Information

Stone Content (%) < 0.1

Sample Mass (kg) 1.0

Dry Matter (%) 95

Moisture (%) 5.4

Landfill WAC analysis (specifically leaching test results) must not be used for hazardous waste classification purposes as defined by the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 (as amended) and EA Guidance WM3.

This analysis is only applicable for landfill acceptance criteria (The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations) and does not give any indication as to whether a waste may be hazardous or non-hazardous.

Results are expressed on a dry weight basis, after correction for moisture content where applicable. *= UKAS accredited (liquid eluate analysis only)

Stated limits are for guidance only and i2 cannot be held responsible for any discrepancies with current legislation ** = MCERTS accredited

mg/kg

DOC 3.90 36.6 500 800 1000

Eluate Analysis

(BS EN 12457 - 2 preparation utilising end over end leaching procedure)

10:1 10:1 Limit values for compliance leaching test

using BS EN 12457-2 at L/S 10 l/kg (mg/kg)

mg/l

01/10/2018

Inert WasteLandfill

Stable Non-reactive

HAZARDOUSwaste in non-

hazardousLandfill

HazardousWaste Landfill

RO101

0.40


Lab Reference (Sample Number) 1060548 / 1060549Landfill Waste Acceptance Criteria

Limits

Waste Acceptance Criteria Analytical Results18-13006

BSL




Page 2 of 5



Lab Sample

Number

Sample

Reference

Sample

NumberDepth (m) Sample Description *

1060548 RO101 None Supplied 0.40 Light brown gravelly sand with rubble.

* These descriptions are only intended to act as a cross check if sample identities are questioned. The major constituent of the sample is intended to act with respect to MCERTS validation. The laboratory is accredited for sand, clay and loam (MCERTS) soil types. Data for unaccredited types of solid should be interpreted with care.

Stone content of a sample is calculated as the % weight of the stones not passing a 10 mm sieve. Results are not corrected for stone content.




Page 3 of 5





number

Wet / Dry

Analysis

Accreditation

Status

Acid neutralisation capacity of soil Determination of acid neutralisation capacity by addition of acid or alkali followed by electronic probe.

In-house method based on Guidance an Sampling and Testing of Wastes to Meet Landfill Waste Acceptance""

L046-PL W NONE

BS EN 12457-2 (10:1) Leachate Prep 10:1 (as recieved, moisture adjusted) end over end extraction with water for 24 hours. Eluate filtered prior to analysis.

In-house method based on BSEN12457-2. L043-PL W NONE

BTEX in soil (Monoaromatics) Determination of BTEX in soil by headspace GC-MS.

In-house method based on USEPA8260 L073B-PL W MCERTS

Chloride 10:1 WAC Determination of Chloride colorimetrically by discrete analyser.

In house based on MEWAM Method ISBN 0117516260.

L082-PL W ISO 17025

Dissolved organic carbon 10:1 WAC Determination of dissolved inorganic carbon in leachate by TOC/DOC NDIR Analyser.

In-house method based on Examination of Water and Wastewater 20th Edition: Clesceri, Greenberg & Eaton

L037-PL W NONE

Fluoride 10:1 WAC Determination of fluoride in leachate by 1:1ratio with a buffer solution followed by Ion Selective Electrode.

In-house method based on Use of Total Ionic Strength Adjustment Buffer for Electrode Determination"

L033B-PL W ISO 17025

Loss on ignition of soil @ 450oC Determination of loss on ignition in soil by gravimetrically with the sample being ignited in a muffle furnace.


L047-PL D MCERTS

Metals in leachate by ICP-OES Determination of metals in leachate by acidification followed by ICP-OES.

In-house method based on MEWAM 2006 Methods for the Determination of Metals in Soil""

L039-PL W ISO 17025

Mineral Oil (Soil) C10 - C40 Determination of mineral oil fraction extractable hydrocarbons in soil by GC-MS/GC-FID.

in-house method L076-PL D NONE

Moisture Content Moisture content, determined gravimetrically. In-house method based on BS1377 Part 2, 1990, Chemical and Electrochemical Tests

L019-UK/PL W NONE

Monohydric phenols 10:1 WAC Determination of phenols in leachate by distillation followed by colorimetry.


L080-PL W ISO 17025

PCB's By GC-MS in soil Determination of PCB by extraction with acetone and hexane followed by GC-MS.

In-house method based on USEPA 8082 L027-PL D MCERTS

pH in soil Determination of pH in soil by addition of water followed by electrometric measurement.


L005-PL W MCERTS




Page 4 of 5





number

Wet / Dry

Analysis

Accreditation

Status

Speciated WAC-17 PAHs in soil Determination of PAH compounds in soil by extraction in dichloromethane and hexane followed by GC-MS with the use of surrogate and internal standards.

In-house method based on USEPA 8270. MCERTS accredited except Coronene.

L064-PL D NONE

Stones content of soil Standard preparation for all samples unless otherwise detailed. Gravimetric determination of stone > 10 mm as % dry weight.

In-house method based on British Standard Methods and MCERTS requirements.

L019-UK/PL D NONE

Sulphate 10:1 WAC Determination of sulphate in leachate by ICP-OES In-house method based on MEWAM 1986 Methods for the Determination of Metals in Soil""

L039-PL W ISO 17025

Total dissolved solids 10:1 WAC Determination of total dissolved solids in water by electrometric measurement.


L004-PL W ISO 17025

Total organic carbon (Automated) in soil

Determination of organic matter in soil by oxidising with potassium dichromate followed by titration with iron (II) sulphate.

In-house method based on BS1377 Part 3, 1990, Chemical and Electrochemical Tests""

L009-PL D MCERTS

For method numbers ending in 'UK' analysis have been carried out in our laboratory in the United Kingdom.

For method numbers ending in 'PL' analysis have been carried out in our laboratory in Poland.

Soil analytical results are expressed on a dry weight basis. Where analysis is carried out on as-received the results obtained are multiplied by a moisture

correction factor that is determined gravimetrically using the moisture content which is carried out at a maximum of 30oC.




Page 5 of 5

DI/C3977/7959



APPENDIX C

Ground Gas Monitoring Results

ALDI STORES LTD


C3977 Ground Gas Monitoring Results

09/10/2018 ND Not Detected

NA Not Available

NGW No Groundwater

mb

AmbientOxygen

(O2)

Carbon

Dioxide

(CO2)

Methane

(CH4)LEL

Hydrogen

Sulphide

(H2S)

Carbon

Monoxide

(CO)

Atm

PressureMonitored by Pressure Trend

Start 21.4 0.2 ND NA ND NA 1002

Finish 21.3 0.1 ND NA ND NA 1002

m bgl litres/hour mb litres/hour litres/hour

LocationState

(Peak/Steady)

Oxygen

(O2)

Carbon

Dioxide

(CO2)

Methane

(CH4)LEL

Hydrogen

Sulphide

(H2S)

Carbon

Monoxide

(CO)

Water Level FlowRelative

Pressure

Sheen

(Y/N)Qhg CO2 Qhg CH4

Peak 21.1 0.3 ND NA ND NA

Steady 21.2 0.2 ND NA ND NA

Peak 20.7 0.4 ND NA ND NA


Peak 18.9 2.4 0.5 10.0 ND NA


Peak NA NA NA NA NA NA



Steady NA NA NA NA NA NAUnable to access, lock broken.NA

Silted to 3.00m bgl.

No

No

RO105

-0.5

0.0



GA5000

RO101

RO102

0.0

0.0

Percentage Concentrations Parts per Million

0.22.62 No

No peak available - tap left open.


RO103

RO104

0.0

2.80

NGW

No

0.1

0.2 -0.1

Key

Steady

Notes

NGW 0.0

Equipment

Percentage Concentrations Parts Per Million

No

DI

Weather

Sunny

0.00 NA

0.00

NA

0.00

NA

0.00 NA

NA NA

ALDI STORES LTD


C3977 Ground Gas Monitoring Results

23/10/2018 ND Not Detected

NA Not Available

NGW No Groundwater

mb

AmbientOxygen

(O2)

Carbon

Dioxide

(CO2)

Methane

(CH4)LEL

Hydrogen

Sulphide

(H2S)

Carbon

Monoxide

(CO)

Atm

PressureMonitored by Pressure Trend

Start 21.5 0.1 ND ND NA NA 1019

Finish 21.5 0.1 ND ND NA NA 1019

m bgl litres/hour mb litres/hour litres/hour

LocationState

(Peak/Steady)

Oxygen

(O2)

Carbon

Dioxide

(CO2)

Methane

(CH4)LEL

Hydrogen

Sulphide

(H2S)

Carbon

Monoxide

(CO)

Water Level FlowRelative

Pressure

Sheen

(Y/N)Qhg CO2 Qhg CH4

Peak 21.1 0.4 ND ND NA NA

Steady 21.5 0.1 ND ND NA NA



Peak 14.7 3.6 0.4 8.0 NA NA

Steady 16.8 2.6 0.2 4.0 NA NA




Steady 3.4 3.1 ND ND NA NARO105 2.83 0.0 0.0 No 0.00 0.00

Peak not available as valve had

not been closed

RO104 NGW 0.6 0.0 No 0.01 0.00

RO103 NGW 0.2 0.1 No 0.01 0.00

RO102 2.67 0.2 0.0 No 0.00 0.00

Percentage Concentrations Parts Per Million

Notes

RO101 NGW 0.0 0.1 No 0.00 0.00

GP GA5000 Cloudy Steady

Key

Percentage Concentrations Parts per Million

Equipment Weather

DI/C3977/7959



APPENDIX D

Contaminated Land Screening Values

Contaminated Land Screening Values

In assessing the potential for contamination Brownfield Solutions Limited (BSL) follows UK guidance

and current best practice.

General

The current recommended method for assessing contamination is on the basis of:

Source-Pathway-Receptor

Where a y o e of these pollutio li kages is a se t there is dee ed to e o risk.

Fundamentally receptors can be considered as humans and controlled waters (surface and ground

waters).

The purpose of using Tier 1 screening levels is to have a simple means of assessing the potential

contamination of a site and to inform decisions on whether further investigation is warranted or

whether an option to undertake clean up based on the data to hand is cost effective.

Human Health

Current UK guidance is provided by DEFRA and the Environment Agency (EA). Publications forming

part of the guidance include; CLEA Model, toxicological reports and soil guideline values (SGV),

collectively referred to as the CLEA Guidance. The CLEA Guidance has included a number of

publications which have provided initial screening values for soil contamination based on standard

land uses and soil assumptions.

CLEA guida e has go e through a u er of re isio s, all of the origi al “GV’s that ere pu lished

ha e ee ithdra a d pu li atio of e “GV’s o e ed i 2009.

For determinands where no SGVs are available, S4UL values have been published using the CLEA 1.06

Model. These are the third set of generic assessment criteria generated by CIEH, and replace the

previous two sets of GACs. The revised S4UL values are based on greater knowledge of relevant

toxicology and further consideration of exposure frequencies.

No SGV or S4UL is available for lead as this is derived based on blood lead levels. C4SL values for six

determinands including lead was published by DEFRA/CL:AIRE in December 2014 and they represent

a low risk as opposed to minimal risk. The C4SL values are based on a sandy loam with 6% Soil

Organic Matter. These screening values were published by DEFRA for Part 2A use, although with the

dual purpose for use under planning. However these have not been officially accepted by Local

Government for use under planning. S4ULs remain the first reference due to the broader range of

end uses and soil organic content.

The preference from the EA is that site specific screening levels are used wherever possible. Due to

numerous factors it is not always possible to utilise site specific values. In these instances the

following data sources are used in the order of preference given below:

Curre t UK “GV’s CIEH S4UL values (derived by CIEH/LQM)

DEFRA/CL:AIRE C4“L’s

CL:AIRE GAC values

Guidance from other European countries

Guidance from the outside Europe.

Controlled Waters

The European Water Framework Directive (WFD) became UK law in December 2003. It was created

to ensure that European countries manage their rivers, groundwater and lakes so that they stay

healthy for people and for wildlife.

This is achieved by the use of chemical standards for surface waters and groundwater. These values

describe concentrations of chemicals that are not expected to cause harm to environmental

organisms or human health, provided they are not exceeded. The same chemical may have several

standards for different environmental regimes, and for different protection objectives.

Statutory Standards are set in legislation and if exceeded, this constitutes non-compliance with

statutory obligations. European Directives are implemented in England and Wales by corresponding

statutory instruments (i.e. regulations). The statutory instruments can be the exact same standards

as they appear in the Directive or be more stringent.

A number of non-statutory standards also exist, these are set by various organisations (including the

EA) for chemicals that are considered to be of concern, but are not covered by any specific

legislation.

The chemical standards used in the UK to control impaction of contamination on controlled waters

are Environmental Quality Standards (EQS). The EQ“’s o er a large u er of o pou ds.

Where certain compounds are not covered by the EQS these are commonly compared to the UK

Drinking Water Standards (DWS).

Further Assessment

When screening values are exceeded then further consideration is required. This could include the

use of simple measures to break the pollution pathway and mitigate the risk, further more detailed

investigation, including the deriving of site specific values to better define the risk and to design

appropriate remedial measures.

DI/C3977/7959



APPENDIX E

Waste Classification Report

www.hazwasteonline.com DG2XJ-5SXZJ-46YDC Page 1 of 14

Waste Classification Report

DG2XJ-5SXZJ-46YDC

Job name

Aldi Chester Street

Description/Comments

Project

C3977

Site


Related Documents

# Name Description

None

Waste Stream Template

BSL Suite

Classified by

Name:

Nicola Swallow

Date:

12 Oct 2018 08:55 GMTTelephone:

01606 334 844

Company:

Brownfield Solutions LtdWilliam Smith House173 – 183 Witton Street

Northwich

CW9 5LP

Report

Created by: Nicola Swallow

Created date: 12 Oct 2018 08:55 GMT

Job summary

# Sample Name Depth [m] Classification Result Hazard properties Page

1 RO101 0.4 Non Hazardous 2





Appendices Page

Appendix A: Classifier defined and non CLP determinands 12

Appendix B: Rationale for selection of metal species 13

Appendix C: Version 13

Report created by Nicola Swallow on 12 Oct 2018

Page 2 of 14 DG2XJ-5SXZJ-46YDC www.hazwasteonline.com

Classification of sample: RO101

Non Hazardous Waste

Classified as 17 05 04

in the List of Waste

Sample details

Sample Name:

RO101Sample Depth:

0.4 m

Moisture content:

5.4%(wet weight correction)

LoW Code:

Chapter: 17: Construction and Demolition Wastes (including excavated soil

from contaminated sites)

Entry: 17 05 04 (Soil and stones other than those mentioned in 17 05

03)

Hazard properties

None identified

Determinands

Moisture content: 5.4% Wet Weight Moisture Correction applied (MC)

#Determinand

CLP

Note

User entered dataConv.

FactorCompound conc.

Classificationvalue

MC

Applie

d

Conc. Not

UsedCLP index number EC Number CAS Number

1arsenic { arsenic trioxide }

5 mg/kg 1.32 6.245 mg/kg 0.000625 %033-003-00-0 215-481-4 1327-53-3

2cadmium { cadmium sulfide }

1 0.3 mg/kg 1.285 0.365 mg/kg 0.0000284 %048-010-00-4 215-147-8 1306-23-6

3chromium in chromium(III) compounds { chromium(III)

oxide } 7.9 mg/kg 1.462 10.923 mg/kg 0.00109 %

215-160-9 1308-38-9

4copper { dicopper oxide; copper (I) oxide }

11 mg/kg 1.126 11.716 mg/kg 0.00117 %029-002-00-X 215-270-7 1317-39-1

5lead { lead chromate }

1 25 mg/kg 1.56 36.89 mg/kg 0.00237 %082-004-00-2 231-846-0 7758-97-6

6mercury { mercury dichloride }

<0.3 mg/kg 1.353 <0.406 mg/kg <0.0000406 % <LOD080-010-00-X 231-299-8 7487-94-7

7

nickel { nickel dihydroxide }

2.8 mg/kg 1.579 4.184 mg/kg 0.000418 %028-008-00-X 235-008-5 [1]

234-348-1 [2]

12054-48-7 [1]

11113-74-9 [2]

8

selenium { selenium compounds with the exception of

cadmium sulphoselenide and those specified elsewhere

in this Annex }<1 mg/kg 2.554 <2.554 mg/kg <0.000255 % <LOD

034-002-00-8

9zinc { zinc chromate }

8.2 mg/kg 2.774 21.52 mg/kg 0.00215 %024-007-00-3

10naphthalene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD601-052-00-2 202-049-5 91-20-3

11acenaphthylene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 205-917-1 208-96-8

12acenaphthene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 201-469-6 83-32-9

13fluorene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 201-695-5 86-73-7

14phenanthrene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 201-581-5 85-01-8



#Determinand

CL

PN

ote



Classificationvalue

MC

Ap

plie

d

Conc. Not


15anthracene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 204-371-1 120-12-7

16fluoranthene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 205-912-4 206-44-0

17pyrene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 204-927-3 129-00-0

18benzo[a]anthracene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD601-033-00-9 200-280-6 56-55-3

19chrysene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD601-048-00-0 205-923-4 218-01-9

20benzo[a]pyrene; benzo[def]chrysene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD601-032-00-3 200-028-5 50-32-8

21indeno[123-cd]pyrene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 205-893-2 193-39-5

22dibenz[a,h]anthracene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD601-041-00-2 200-181-8 53-70-3

23benzo[ghi]perylene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 205-883-8 191-24-2

24benzo[b]fluoranthene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD601-034-00-4 205-911-9 205-99-2

25benzo[k]fluoranthene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD601-036-00-5 205-916-6 207-08-9

26phenol

<1.3 mg/kg <1.3 mg/kg <0.00013 % <LOD604-001-00-2 203-632-7 108-95-2

27

chromium in chromium(VI) compounds { chromium(VI)

oxide } <1.2 mg/kg 1.923 <2.308 mg/kg <0.000231 % <LOD

024-001-00-0 215-607-8 1333-82-0

28

cyanides { salts of hydrogen cyanide with the

exception of complex cyanides such as ferrocyanides,

ferricyanides and mercuric oxycyanide and those

specified elsewhere in this Annex }

<1 mg/kg 1.884 <1.884 mg/kg <0.000188 % <LOD

006-007-00-5

29pH

8.7 pH 8.7 pH 8.7 pH PH

Total: 0.00878 %

Key

User supplied data

Determinand values ignored for classification, see column 'Conc. Not Used' for reason

Determinand defined or amended by HazWasteOnline (see Appendix A)

Speciated Deteminand - Unless the Determinand is Note 1, the Conversion Factor is used to calculate the compound

concentration

<LOD Below limit of detection

CLP: Note 1 Only the metal concentration has been used for classification




Non Hazardous Waste



Sample details

Sample Name:

RO102Sample Depth:

0.3 m

Moisture content:


LoW Code:




03)

Hazard properties

None identified

Determinands


#Determinand

CLP

Note



Classificationvalue

MC

Applie

d

Conc. Not



3.1 mg/kg 1.32 4.036 mg/kg 0.000404 %033-003-00-0 215-481-4 1327-53-3


1 0.3 mg/kg 1.285 0.38 mg/kg 0.0000296 %048-010-00-4 215-147-8 1306-23-6


oxide } 8.5 mg/kg 1.462 12.249 mg/kg 0.00122 %

215-160-9 1308-38-9


8.2 mg/kg 1.126 9.103 mg/kg 0.00091 %029-002-00-X 215-270-7 1317-39-1


1 15 mg/kg 1.56 23.07 mg/kg 0.00148 %082-004-00-2 231-846-0 7758-97-6


<0.3 mg/kg 1.353 <0.406 mg/kg <0.0000406 % <LOD080-010-00-X 231-299-8 7487-94-7

7


6 mg/kg 1.579 9.344 mg/kg 0.000934 %028-008-00-X 235-008-5 [1]

234-348-1 [2]

12054-48-7 [1]

11113-74-9 [2]

8




034-002-00-8


7.8 mg/kg 2.774 21.335 mg/kg 0.00213 %024-007-00-3

10naphthalene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD601-052-00-2 202-049-5 91-20-3

11acenaphthylene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 205-917-1 208-96-8

12acenaphthene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 201-469-6 83-32-9

13fluorene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 201-695-5 86-73-7

14phenanthrene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 201-581-5 85-01-8



#Determinand

CL

PN

ote



Classificationvalue

MC

Ap

plie

d

Conc. Not


15anthracene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 204-371-1 120-12-7

16fluoranthene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 205-912-4 206-44-0

17pyrene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 204-927-3 129-00-0


<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD601-033-00-9 200-280-6 56-55-3

19chrysene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD601-048-00-0 205-923-4 218-01-9


<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD601-032-00-3 200-028-5 50-32-8


<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 205-893-2 193-39-5


<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD601-041-00-2 200-181-8 53-70-3


<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 205-883-8 191-24-2


<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD601-034-00-4 205-911-9 205-99-2


<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD601-036-00-5 205-916-6 207-08-9

26phenol

<1.3 mg/kg <1.3 mg/kg <0.00013 % <LOD604-001-00-2 203-632-7 108-95-2

27



024-001-00-0 215-607-8 1333-82-0

28





<1 mg/kg 1.884 <1.884 mg/kg <0.000188 % <LOD

006-007-00-5

29pH

8 pH 8 pH 8pH PH

Total: 0.00804 %

Key

User supplied data




concentration






Non Hazardous Waste



Sample details

Sample Name:

RO103Sample Depth:

0.4 m

Moisture content:


LoW Code:




03)

Hazard properties

None identified

Determinands


#Determinand

CLP

Note



Classificationvalue

MC

Applie

d

Conc. Not



5.7 mg/kg 1.32 6.879 mg/kg 0.000688 %033-003-00-0 215-481-4 1327-53-3


1 <0.2 mg/kg 1.285 <0.257 mg/kg <0.00002 % <LOD048-010-00-4 215-147-8 1306-23-6


oxide } 8.2 mg/kg 1.462 10.954 mg/kg 0.0011 %

215-160-9 1308-38-9


22 mg/kg 1.126 22.639 mg/kg 0.00226 %029-002-00-X 215-270-7 1317-39-1


1 140 mg/kg 1.56 199.594 mg/kg 0.0128 %082-004-00-2 231-846-0 7758-97-6


<0.3 mg/kg 1.353 <0.406 mg/kg <0.0000406 % <LOD080-010-00-X 231-299-8 7487-94-7

7


4.6 mg/kg 1.579 6.641 mg/kg 0.000664 %028-008-00-X 235-008-5 [1]

234-348-1 [2]

12054-48-7 [1]

11113-74-9 [2]

8




034-002-00-8


14 mg/kg 2.774 35.498 mg/kg 0.00355 %024-007-00-3

10naphthalene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD601-052-00-2 202-049-5 91-20-3

11acenaphthylene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 205-917-1 208-96-8

12acenaphthene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 201-469-6 83-32-9

13fluorene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 201-695-5 86-73-7

14phenanthrene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 201-581-5 85-01-8



#Determinand

CL

PN

ote



Classificationvalue

MC

Ap

plie

d

Conc. Not


15anthracene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 204-371-1 120-12-7

16fluoranthene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 205-912-4 206-44-0

17pyrene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 204-927-3 129-00-0


<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD601-033-00-9 200-280-6 56-55-3

19chrysene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD601-048-00-0 205-923-4 218-01-9


<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD601-032-00-3 200-028-5 50-32-8


<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 205-893-2 193-39-5


<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD601-041-00-2 200-181-8 53-70-3


<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 205-883-8 191-24-2


<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD601-034-00-4 205-911-9 205-99-2


<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD601-036-00-5 205-916-6 207-08-9

26phenol

<1.3 mg/kg <1.3 mg/kg <0.00013 % <LOD604-001-00-2 203-632-7 108-95-2

27



024-001-00-0 215-607-8 1333-82-0

28





<1 mg/kg 1.884 <1.884 mg/kg <0.000188 % <LOD

006-007-00-5

29pH

10.3 pH 10.3 pH 10.3 pH PH

Total: 0.022 %

Key

User supplied data




concentration






Non Hazardous Waste



Sample details

Sample Name:

RO104Sample Depth:

0.5 m

Moisture content:


LoW Code:




03)

Hazard properties

None identified

Determinands


#Determinand

CLP

Note



Classificationvalue

MC

Applie

d

Conc. Not



6.9 mg/kg 1.32 8.454 mg/kg 0.000845 %033-003-00-0 215-481-4 1327-53-3


1 <0.2 mg/kg 1.285 <0.257 mg/kg <0.00002 % <LOD048-010-00-4 215-147-8 1306-23-6


oxide } 12 mg/kg 1.462 16.276 mg/kg 0.00163 %

215-160-9 1308-38-9


16 mg/kg 1.126 16.717 mg/kg 0.00167 %029-002-00-X 215-270-7 1317-39-1


1 93 mg/kg 1.56 134.618 mg/kg 0.00863 %082-004-00-2 231-846-0 7758-97-6


<0.3 mg/kg 1.353 <0.406 mg/kg <0.0000406 % <LOD080-010-00-X 231-299-8 7487-94-7

7


9.2 mg/kg 1.579 13.485 mg/kg 0.00135 %028-008-00-X 235-008-5 [1]

234-348-1 [2]

12054-48-7 [1]

11113-74-9 [2]

8




034-002-00-8


13 mg/kg 2.774 33.467 mg/kg 0.00335 %024-007-00-3

10naphthalene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD601-052-00-2 202-049-5 91-20-3

11acenaphthylene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 205-917-1 208-96-8

12acenaphthene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 201-469-6 83-32-9

13fluorene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 201-695-5 86-73-7

14phenanthrene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 201-581-5 85-01-8



#Determinand

CL

PN

ote



Classificationvalue

MC

Ap

plie

d

Conc. Not


15anthracene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 204-371-1 120-12-7

16fluoranthene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 205-912-4 206-44-0

17pyrene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 204-927-3 129-00-0


<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD601-033-00-9 200-280-6 56-55-3

19chrysene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD601-048-00-0 205-923-4 218-01-9


<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD601-032-00-3 200-028-5 50-32-8


<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 205-893-2 193-39-5


<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD601-041-00-2 200-181-8 53-70-3


<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 205-883-8 191-24-2


<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD601-034-00-4 205-911-9 205-99-2


<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD601-036-00-5 205-916-6 207-08-9

26phenol

<1.3 mg/kg <1.3 mg/kg <0.00013 % <LOD604-001-00-2 203-632-7 108-95-2

27



024-001-00-0 215-607-8 1333-82-0

28





<1 mg/kg 1.884 <1.884 mg/kg <0.000188 % <LOD

006-007-00-5

29pH

8.4 pH 8.4 pH 8.4 pH PH

Total: 0.0184 %

Key

User supplied data




concentration






Non Hazardous Waste



Sample details

Sample Name:

RO105Sample Depth:

0.1 m

Moisture content:

3%(wet weight correction)

LoW Code:




03)

Hazard properties

None identified

Determinands

Moisture content: 3% Wet Weight Moisture Correction applied (MC)

#Determinand

CLP

Note



Classificationvalue

MC

Applie

d

Conc. Not



<1 mg/kg 1.32 <1.32 mg/kg <0.000132 % <LOD033-003-00-0 215-481-4 1327-53-3


1 0.3 mg/kg 1.285 0.374 mg/kg 0.0000291 %048-010-00-4 215-147-8 1306-23-6


oxide } 4.9 mg/kg 1.462 6.947 mg/kg 0.000695 %

215-160-9 1308-38-9


5.7 mg/kg 1.126 6.225 mg/kg 0.000623 %029-002-00-X 215-270-7 1317-39-1


1 18 mg/kg 1.56 27.234 mg/kg 0.00175 %082-004-00-2 231-846-0 7758-97-6


<0.3 mg/kg 1.353 <0.406 mg/kg <0.0000406 % <LOD080-010-00-X 231-299-8 7487-94-7

7


2.6 mg/kg 1.579 3.983 mg/kg 0.000398 %028-008-00-X 235-008-5 [1]

234-348-1 [2]

12054-48-7 [1]

11113-74-9 [2]

8




034-002-00-8


4.8 mg/kg 2.774 12.916 mg/kg 0.00129 %024-007-00-3

10naphthalene

1.4 mg/kg 1.358 mg/kg 0.000136 %601-052-00-2 202-049-5 91-20-3

11acenaphthylene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 205-917-1 208-96-8

12acenaphthene

0.34 mg/kg 0.33 mg/kg 0.000033 % 201-469-6 83-32-9

13fluorene

0.18 mg/kg 0.175 mg/kg 0.0000175 % 201-695-5 86-73-7

14phenanthrene

0.35 mg/kg 0.339 mg/kg 0.0000339 % 201-581-5 85-01-8



#Determinand

CL

PN

ote



Classificationvalue

MC

Ap

plie

d

Conc. Not


15anthracene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 204-371-1 120-12-7

16fluoranthene

0.16 mg/kg 0.155 mg/kg 0.0000155 % 205-912-4 206-44-0

17pyrene

0.19 mg/kg 0.184 mg/kg 0.0000184 % 204-927-3 129-00-0


<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD601-033-00-9 200-280-6 56-55-3

19chrysene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD601-048-00-0 205-923-4 218-01-9


<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD601-032-00-3 200-028-5 50-32-8


<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 205-893-2 193-39-5


<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD601-041-00-2 200-181-8 53-70-3


<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 205-883-8 191-24-2


<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD601-034-00-4 205-911-9 205-99-2


<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD601-036-00-5 205-916-6 207-08-9

26phenol

<1.3 mg/kg <1.3 mg/kg <0.00013 % <LOD604-001-00-2 203-632-7 108-95-2

27



024-001-00-0 215-607-8 1333-82-0

28





<1 mg/kg 1.884 <1.884 mg/kg <0.000188 % <LOD

006-007-00-5

29pH

8.8 pH 8.8 pH 8.8 pH PH

Total: 0.00606 %

Key

User supplied data




concentration





Appendix A: Classifier defined and non CLP determinands

chromium(III) oxide (EC Number: 215-160-9, CAS Number: 1308-38-9)

Conversion factor: 1.462

Description/Comments: Data from C&L Inventory Database

Data source: http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/information-on-chemicals/cl-inventory-database

Data source date: 17 Jul 2015

Hazard Statements: Aquatic Chronic 1 H410 , Aquatic Acute 1 H400 , Repr. 1B H360FD , Skin Sens. 1 H317 , Resp. Sens. 1 H334 ,

Skin Irrit. 2 H315 , STOT SE 3 H335 , Eye Irrit. 2 H319 , Acute Tox. 4 H302 , Acute Tox. 4 H332

acenaphthylene (EC Number: 205-917-1, CAS Number: 208-96-8)




Hazard Statements: Skin Irrit. 2 H315 , STOT SE 3 H335 , Eye Irrit. 2 H319 , Acute Tox. 1 H310 , Acute Tox. 1 H330 , Acute Tox. 4 H302

acenaphthene (EC Number: 201-469-6, CAS Number: 83-32-9)




Hazard Statements: Aquatic Chronic 2 H411 , Aquatic Chronic 1 H410 , Aquatic Acute 1 H400 , Skin Irrit. 2 H315 , STOT SE 3 H335 ,

Eye Irrit. 2 H319

fluorene (EC Number: 201-695-5, CAS Number: 86-73-7)



Data source date: 06 Aug 2015

Hazard Statements: Aquatic Chronic 1 H410 , Aquatic Acute 1 H400

phenanthrene (EC Number: 201-581-5, CAS Number: 85-01-8)




Hazard Statements: Skin Irrit. 2 H315 , Aquatic Chronic 1 H410 , Aquatic Acute 1 H400 , Skin Sens. 1 H317 , Carc. 2 H351 , STOT SE 3

H335 , Eye Irrit. 2 H319 , Acute Tox. 4 H302

anthracene (EC Number: 204-371-1, CAS Number: 120-12-7)




Hazard Statements: Aquatic Chronic 1 H410 , Aquatic Acute 1 H400 , Skin Sens. 1 H317 , Skin Irrit. 2 H315 , STOT SE 3 H335 , Eye

Irrit. 2 H319

fluoranthene (EC Number: 205-912-4, CAS Number: 206-44-0)




Hazard Statements: Aquatic Chronic 1 H410 , Aquatic Acute 1 H400 , Acute Tox. 4 H302

pyrene (EC Number: 204-927-3, CAS Number: 129-00-0)

Description/Comments: Data from C&L Inventory Database; SDS Sigma Aldrich 2014



Hazard Statements: Aquatic Chronic 1 H410 , Aquatic Acute 1 H400 , STOT SE 3 H335 , Eye Irrit. 2 H319 , Skin Irrit. 2 H315

indeno[123-cd]pyrene (EC Number: 205-893-2, CAS Number: 193-39-5)




Hazard Statements: Carc. 2 H351



benzo[ghi]perylene (EC Number: 205-883-8, CAS Number: 191-24-2)

Description/Comments: Data from C&L Inventory Database; SDS Sigma Aldrich 28/02/2015



Hazard Statements: Aquatic Chronic 1 H410 , Aquatic Acute 1 H400

salts of hydrogen cyanide with the exception of complex cyanides such as ferrocyanides, ferricyanides and mercuricoxycyanide and those specified elsewhere in this Annex

CLP index number: 006-007-00-5

Description/Comments: Conversion factor based on a worst case compound: sodium cyanide

Data source: Commission Regulation (EC) No 790/2009 - 1st Adaptation to Technical Progress for Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008.

(ATP1)

Additional Hazard Statement(s): EUH032 >= 0.2 %

Reason for additional Hazards Statement(s)/Risk Phrase(s):

14 Dec 2015 - EUH032 >= 0.2 % hazard statement sourced from: WM3, Table C12.2

pH (CAS Number: PH)

Description/Comments: Appendix C4

Data source: WM3 1st Edition 2015

Data source date: 25 May 2015

Hazard Statements: None.

Appendix B: Rationale for selection of metal species

arsenic {arsenic trioxide}

Worst case species based on hazard statements

cadmium {cadmium sulfide}


chromium in chromium(III) compounds {chromium(III) oxide}


copper {dicopper oxide; copper (I) oxide}

Most likely common species

lead {lead chromate}


mercury {mercury dichloride}


nickel {nickel dihydroxide}


selenium {selenium compounds with the exception of cadmium sulphoselenide and those specified elsewhere in this Annex}


zinc {zinc chromate}


chromium in chromium(VI) compounds {chromium(VI) oxide}


cyanides {salts of hydrogen cyanide with the exception of complex cyanides such as ferrocyanides, ferricyanides and

mercuric oxycyanide and those specified elsewhere in this Annex}

Worst case species

Appendix C: Version

HazWasteOnline Classification Engine: WM3 1st Edition v1.1, May 2018

HazWasteOnline Classification Engine Version: 2018.279.3663.7481 (09 Oct 2018)

HazWasteOnline Database: 2018.279.3663.7481 (09 Oct 2018)



This classification utilises the following guidance and legislation:

WM3 v1.1 - Waste Classification - 1st Edition v1.1 - May 2018

CLP Regulation - Regulation 1272/2008/EC of 16 December 2008

1st ATP - Regulation 790/2009/EC of 10 August 2009

2nd ATP - Regulation 286/2011/EC of 10 March 2011

3rd ATP - Regulation 618/2012/EU of 10 July 2012

4th ATP - Regulation 487/2013/EU of 8 May 2013

Correction to 1st ATP - Regulation 758/2013/EU of 7 August 2013

5th ATP - Regulation 944/2013/EU of 2 October 2013

6th ATP - Regulation 605/2014/EU of 5 June 2014

WFD Annex III replacement - Regulation 1357/2014/EU of 18 December 2014

Revised List of Wastes 2014 - Decision 2014/955/EU of 18 December 2014

7th ATP - Regulation 2015/1221/EU of 24 July 2015

8th ATP - Regulation (EU) 2016/918 of 19 May 2016

9th ATP - Regulation (EU) 2016/1179 of 19 July 2016

10th ATP - Regulation (EU) 2017/776 of 4 May 2017

HP14 amendment - Regulation (EU) 2017/997 of 8 June 2017

POPs Regulation 2004 - Regulation 850/2004/EC of 29 April 2004

1st ATP to POPs Regulation - Regulation 756/2010/EU of 24 August 2010

2nd ATP to POPs Regulation - Regulation 757/2010/EU of 24 August 2010

DI/C3977/7959



APPENDIX F

CIRIA Risk Assessment Methodology

DI/C3977/7959



Contaminated Land Risk Assessment

Contaminated Land Risk Assessment is a technique that identifies and considers the

associated risk, determines whether the risks are significant and whether action needs to be

taken. The four main stages of risk assessment are:

Hazard Identification Hazard Assessment Risk Estimation Risk Evaluation

CLR11 outlines the framework to be followed for risk assessment in the UK. The framework is

designed to be consistent with UK legislation and policies including planning. The starting

point of the risk assessment is to identify the context of the problem and the objectives of the

process. Under CLR11, three tiers of risk assessment exist - Preliminary, Generic Quantitative

and Detailed Quantitative.

Formulating and developing a conceptual model for the site is an important requirement of

risk assessment, this supports the identification and assessment of pollutant linkages.

Development of the conceptual model forms the main part of preliminary risk assessment,

and the model is subsequently refined or revised as more information and understanding is

obtained through the risk assessment process.

Risk is a combination of the likelihood of an event occurring and the magnitude of its

consequences. Therefore, both the likelihood and the consequences of an event must be

taken into account when assessing risk.

The risk assessment process needs to take into account the degree of confidence required in

decisions. Identification of uncertainties is an essential step in risk assessment.

The likelihood of an event is classified on a four-point system using the following terms and

definitions from CIRIA C552:

▪ High likelihood: There is a pollution linkage and an event appears very likely in the

short term and almost inevitable over the long term, or there is evidence at the

receptor of harm or pollution;

▪ Likely: There is a pollution linkage and all the elements are present and in the right

place, which means it is probable that an event will occur. Circumstances are such that

the event is not inevitable, but possible in the short term and likely over the long term;

▪ Low likelihood: There is a pollution linkage and circumstances are possible under

which an event could occur. However, it is by no means certain even over a longer

period such event would take place, and is less likely in the short term;

▪ Unlikely: There is a pollution linkage but circumstances are such that it is improbable

the event would occur even in the long term.

The severity is also classified using a system based on CIRIA C552. The terms and definitions

are:

DI/C3977/7959



▪ Severe: Short term (acute) risk to hu a health likel to esult i sig ifi a t ha as defined by the Environment Protection Act 1990, Part IIA. Short-term risk of pollution

of sensitive water resources. Catastrophic damage to buildings or property. A short-

term risk to a particular ecosystem or organism forming part of that ecosystem (note

defi itio of e os ste i D aft Ci ula o Co ta i ated La d , DET‘ ; Examples – High concentrations of contaminant on surface of recreation area, major

spillage of contaminants from site into controlled waters, explosion causing building

to collapse;

▪ Medium: Ch o i da age to hu a health sig ifi a t ha as defi ed i DET‘ 2000). Pollution of sensitive water resources. A significant change in a particular

ecosystem or organism forming part of that ecosystem (note definition of ecosystem

i D aft Ci ula o Co ta i ated La d , DET‘ ; Examples - Concentrations of contaminants exceed the generic assessment criteria,

leaching of contaminants from a site to a Principal or Secondary Aquifer, death of

species within a designated nature reserve;

▪ Mild: Pollution of non-sensitive water resources. Significant damage to crops,

uildi gs, st u tu es a d se i es sig ifi a t ha as defi ed i D aft Ci ula o Co ta i ated La d , DETR 2000). Damage to sensitive buildings, structures, services

or the environment;

Examples – Pollution of non-classified groundwater or damage to buildings rendering

it unsafe to occupy.

▪ Minor: harm, not necessarily significant harm, which may result in financial loss or

expenditure to resolve. Non-permanent health effects to human health (easily

prevented by use of personal protective clothing etc). Easily repairable effects of

damage to buildings, structures and services.

Examples – Presence of contaminants at such concentrations PPE is required during site

work, loss of plants in landscaping scheme or discolouration of concrete.

Once the likelihood and severity have been determined, a risk category can be assigned using

the table below.

Consequences

Severe Medium Mild Minor

Pro

ba

bil

ity

Highly likely Very high High Moderate Moderate/low

Likely High Moderate Moderate/low Low

Low likelihood Moderate Moderate/low Low Very low

Unlikely Moderate/low Low Very Low Very low

DI/C3977/7959



Definitions of the risk categories obtained from the above table are as follows together with

an assessment of the further work that might be required:

• Very high: There is a high probability that severe harm could arise to a designated

receptor from an identified hazard or there is evidence that severe harm is currently

happening. This risk, if realised, could result in substantial liability. Urgent

investigation and remediation are likely to be required;

• High: Harm is likely to arise to a designated receptor from an identified hazard.

Realisation of the risk is likely to present a substantial liability. Urgent investigation is

required and remedial works may be necessary in the short term and are likely over

the longer term;

• Moderate: It is possible that harm could arise to a designated receptor from an

identified hazard. However, it is either relatively unlikely that any such harm would

be severe, or if any harm were to occur it would be more likely to be relatively mild.

Investigation is normally required to clarify the risk and determine the liability. Some

remedial works may be required in the longer term;

• Low: It is possible that harm could arise to a designated receptor from an identified

hazard, but it is likely that this harm, if realised, would at worst normally be mild;

• Very Low: There is a low possibility that harm could arise to a receptor. In the event

of such harm being realised, it is not likely to be severe.

DI/C3977/7959



PPENDIX G

Contaminated Land Legislative Background

DI/C3977/7959



Legislative Background

Environmental liabilities and risks have been evaluated in terms of a source -pathway - target relationship in accordance

with the approach set out in:

• The 1995 Environment Act;

• The Contaminated Land (England) Regulations 2000;

• The DETR circular 02/2000 Environmental Protection Act 1990: Part IIA Contaminated Land.

Contaminated land is defined within the legislative framework as land which is in such condition by reason of substances

in, on or under the land that:

1) Significant harm is being caused or there is a significant possibility of such harm being caused;

2) Significant pollution of controlled waters is being or is likely to be caused.

The potential for harm is based on the presence of three factors:

➢ Source - substances that are potential contaminants or pollutants that may cause harm;

➢ Pathway - a potential route by which contaminants can move from the source to the receptor;

➢ Receptor - a receptor that may be harmed, for example the water environment, humans and water.

Where a source, pathway and target are all present a pollutant linkage exists and there is potential for harm to be caused.

The presence of a source does not automatically imply that a contamination problem exists, since contamination must be

defined in terms of pollutant linkages and unacceptable risk of harm. The nature and importance of both pathways and

receptors are site specific and will vary according to the intended end use of the site, its characteristics and its

surroundings.

The ke p i iple hi h suppo ts the “P‘ app oa h is suita le fo use ite ia. This e ui es e edial a tio o l he e contamination is considered to pose unacceptable actual or potential risks to health or the environment and, taking into

account the proposed use of the site.

Relevant Guidance Documents

This report has been prepared in accordance with the list of guidance below however the list is not exhaustive:

▪ CLR11 – Model Procedures;

▪ Contamination and Environmental Matters - Their implications for Property Professionals (2nd Edition RICS Nov

2003);

▪ Brownfields – Managing the development of previously developed land – A lie t s guide, CI‘IA ; ▪ DEFRA and Environment Agency publications CLR7 – 10, supported by the TOX guides and SGV guides, dated

March 2002;

▪ DETR Circular 02/2000, Contaminated Land: Implementation of Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act

1990;

▪ Environment Agency technical advice to third parties on Pollution of Controlled Waters for Part IIA of the

EPA1990, May 2002;

Relevant Legislative Documents

The following is a non-exhaustive list of legislative framework documents that has been considered in the production of

this report:

• The Environment Act (1995);

• The Environmental Protection Act 1990: Part 2A Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance (2012);

• The Environment Protection Act (1990);

• The Contaminated Land (England) Act (2000);

• Contaminated Land (England) Regulations (2012);

• The Water Resources Act (1991);

• The Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations (2000);

• The Landfill Regulations (England and Wales) Regulations (2002);

• The Landfill (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations (2004);

• Health and Safety at Work Act;

DI/C3977/7959



APPENDIX H

Waste Disposal Guidance

WASTE CLASSIFICATION FOR SOILS

Introduction

Waste producers have a duty of care classify the waste they are producing:

• before it is collected, disposed of or recovered.

• to identify the controls that apply to the movement of the waste.

• to complete waste documents and records.

• to identify suitably authorised waste management options.

• to prevent harm to people and the environment.

The most sustainable and economic method of dealing with waste soil is usually the retention and re-use on site.

Where this is not possible there are three main options for the disposal of soils:

1. Disposal to a permitted waste recycling facility.

2. Re-use on another site (subject to the suitability).

3. Disposal to a landfill site.

The disposal to a permitted facility will be subject to the specific conditions of the permits for each of individual

facility and will vary dependent on location and environmental sensitivity of the receiving site. Re-use on

another site with also be subject to the acceptability criteria of that site.

The guidance below relates to disposal to landfill sites only.

Background for Landfill Disposal

In July 2005 the United Kingdom implemented the European Directive 1999/31/EC (The Landfill Directive), this

introduced the current regime for waste and waste disposal to landfill. The Landfill Directive places controls on

waste disposal. These controls include requirements to follow the waste acceptance procedures and criteria that

have been agreed by the Council of the European Union and are laid out in Council Decision 2003/33/EC.

Before a waste can be accepted at a landfill site, the landfill operator must be satisfied that the waste meets his

permit conditions, the waste acceptance procedures (WAP) and waste acceptance criteria (WAC).

If disposal to landfill is the best management option for the waste soils, these procedures must be followed or

the operator may refuse to accept the waste.

Key Points

• Not all waste can be landfilled

• Landfills are classified according to whether they can accept hazardous, non-hazardous or inert wastes.

• Wastes can only be accepted at a landfill if they meet the waste acceptance criteria (WAC) for that class

of landfill.

• Most wastes must be treated before you can send them to landfill.

• There are formal processes for identifying and checking wastes that must be followed before wastes can

be accepted at a landfill site.

Classification

Wastes are listed in the European Waste Catalogue (EWC 2002) and grouped according to generic industry,

process or waste types. Wastes within the EWC are either hazardous or non-hazardous. Some of these wastes

are hazardous ithout fu the assess e t a solute e t ies o a e i o e t ies that e ui e fu the assessment of their hazardous properties in order to determine whether they are hazardous waste.

Waste Classification for Soil

Page 2 www.brownfield-solutions.com September 2018

Waste soil has mirror entries on the EWC and as such the first phase of the waste classification process is that of

determining if the waste is hazardous or not ie the hazard assessment. The most common EWC waste codes

related to soil are:

17 05 soil (including excavated soil from contaminated sites), stones and dredging spoil

17 05 03* soil and stones containing dangerous substances

17 05 04 soil and stones other than those mentioned in 17 05 03

Soils may contain certain contaminants (eg asbestos, diesel) which have prescribed concentration thresholds,

that if ea hed ill e de the ate ial haza dous aste. These a e ased o isk ph ases hi h a i lude risks such as carcinogenicity, flammability or toxicity.

In the first instance the concentrations of plausible contaminants within the soil should be identified and wastes

should be classified based on their total concentrations.

Waste Definitions

Inert • Will not undergo any significant physical, chemical or biological transformations.

• Will not dissolve.

• Will not burn.

• Will not physically or chemically react.

• Will not biodegrade.

• Will not adversely affect other matter with which it comes into contact in a way likely to give rise to

environmental pollution or harm to human health.

• Has insignificant total leachability and pollutant content.

• Produces a leachate with an ecotoxicity that is insignificant (if it produces leachate).

Non-Hazardous Is not inert (see above)

Is not hazardous (see below)

Hazardous Soil has hazardous properties as defined in WM3 (.Guidance on the classification and assessment of waste (1st

edition 2015)- Technical Guidance)

Stable Non-reactive

hazardous waste#

Hazardous waste, the leaching behaviour of which will not change adversely in the long-term, under

landfill design conditions or foreseeable accidents: in the waste alone (for example, by biodegradation);

under the impact of long-term ambient conditions (for example, water, air, temperature or mechanical

constraints); by the impact of other wastes (including waste products such as leachate and gas).

# This option allows hazardous waste that has been stabilised and thus has a low leaching potential to be deposited in cells with a standard of containment

consistent with non-hazardous wastes.

WAC Testing

The purpose of WAC analysis is to confirm that the waste complies with the relevant WAC for the receiving

landfill. If the waste has any disposal route other than a landfill site (eg recycling facility, incineration etc…) then

WAC is not relevant. Further the WAC limits cannot be used to make an assessment of whether a waste is

hazardous. WAC testing does however define if a non-hazardous waste is suitable for an inert landfill.

Classification based on

Total Concentrations Non Hazardous Waste Hazardous Waste

WAC testing Below inert WAC

limit values:

Above inert WAC

limit values:

Below hazardous

WAC limit values

Above hazardous

WAC limit values

Landfill requirements INERT landfill NON-

HAZARDOUS

landfill1

HAZARDOUS

landfill

PRE-TREATMENT2

1 Individual sites may have certain limit values pre-determined in their licence

2 After pre-treatment the material characteristics may have changed to an extent that allow the soil to be re-classified.



Hydrocarbons in Soils

WM3 uses the term Oil or Waste Oil to cover hydrocarbons products such as fuel oil, petrol or diesel. These are

defined by WM3 as hazardous under an absolute entry in the List of Wastes. However hydrocarbons in soils are

a mixture rather than a pure product and absolute entries are not relevant.

Known Oils

The simplest scenario is where the identity of the contaminating oil is known, or can be identified. If the oil is

k o the a ufa tu e s o supplie s ‘EACH o plia t safety data sheet fo the spe ifi oil a e o tai ed and the hazard statement codes on that Safety Data Sheet can be used for the hazardous waste assessment.

Where the identity of the oil can only be identified down to a petroleum group level (i.e. the contaminating oil is

known to be diesel, but the specific type/brand is unknown), then the classification of that petroleum group

should be used in the assessment. The marker compounds associated with that petroleum group may be used to

confirm carcinogenicity.

Oils may contain a range of hydrocarbons, so the presence of for instance Diesel Range Organics (DRO) does not

enable the assessor to conclude that diesel is present. These hydrocarbons may have arisen from other oils, the

laboratory needs to provide an interpretation that the chromatograph is consistent with diesel or weathered

diesel as a whole.

The concentration of known oils should be determined using a method that as a minimum spans the range in

which the carbon numbers for that known oil fall.

Unknown Oils

Where hydrocarbons are contaminating soils it is likely that the oil will be unknown or cannot be determined.

WM3 states that:

For contaminated land specific consideration must be given to the following before proceeding;

• The presence of other organic contaminants, for example solvents or coal tar that could be detected as

hydrocarbons. Coal Tar is not an oil and is considered separately in example 2. Where the site history or

investigation indicates the presence of hydrocarbons from oil and other sources (e.g. coal tar), and the origin of

the hydrocarbons cannot reliably be assigned to either, then a worst case approach of considering the

hydrocarbons both as, waste oil (in accordance with this example) and from other sources, for example coal tar

should be taken.

• The presence of diesel, or weathered diesel, should be specifically considered by the laboratory and where this is

confirmed by the hydrocarbon profile the oil should be assessed as a known or identified oil (diesel).

The use of marker compounds is optional; however it is recommended that where possible the marker

compounds should be used.

WM3 states:

If the identity of the oil is unknown, and the petroleum group cannot be established, then the oil contaminating the waste

can be classified as non-carcinogenic/mutagenic due to the presence of oil if all three of the following criteria are met:

• The waste contains benzo[a]pyrene (BaP) at a concentration of less than 0.01% (1/10,000th) of the TPH

concentration (This is the carcinogenic limit specified in table 3.1 of the CLP for BaP)

• This has been determined by an appropriate and representative sampling approach in accordance with the

principles set out in Appendix D, and

• The analysis clearly demonstrates, for example by carbon bands or chromatograph, and the laboratory has

reasonably concluded that the hydrocarbons present have not arisen from petrol or diesel.



For example:

TPH Concentration

(mg/kg) Petrol or Diesel BaP (mg/kg) Classification

10,000 No 0.9 Non- Hazardous

1,000 No Not available Hazardous

1,000 Yes Not relevant Hazardous

References

1. Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 (as amended) (EP Regulations), the Landfill Directive

(1999/31/EC) and the subsequent Council Decisions.

2. E i o e t Age y E i o e tal Pe itti g ‘egulatio s: Inert Waste Guidance- Standards and Measures for the

Deposit of Inert Waste on Land 9. 3. E i o e t Age y Waste acceptance at landfills - Guidance on waste acceptance procedures and criteria No .

4. E i o e t Age y Guidance on the classification and assessment of waste (Technical Guidance WM3) .

5. Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Substances Regulation (EC 1272/2008) (CLP).

6. Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing

certain Directives

7. 2014/955/EU: Commission Decision of 18 December 2014 amending Decision 2000/532/EC on the list of waste pursuant

to Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament

8. Environmental Permitting Guidance The Landfill Directive For the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales)

Regulations 2010 Updated March 2010 Version 3.1

DI/C3977/7959



APPENDIX I

CL:AIRE CoP

RE-US

Definition of Waste:

The Environment Agency considers waste to be

trenches, footing, site strip etc. It is no longer

Re-use of Waste

Previously large scale earthworks and remedia

in 2010 the Environment Agency in England

restricted the quantity of materials available fo

For purposes of earthworks and remediation, th

commonly referred to as a “Materials Managem

CL:AIRE: Code of Practice

Where materials are excavated for constructio

they are suitable for use. The developer/cont

Practice for the Definition of Waste” (CL:AIRE C

Potential scenarios where soils may be able to b

• Material capable of being used in ano




The Code of Practice requires 4 No. Factors to b

1. Protection of human health an

2. Suitability of use, without furth

3. Certainty of use.

4. Quantity of material.

In order to satisfy these requirements the follow

i) Consultation/approval with Loc

use of waste soils, or the risk as

ii) Risk Assessments to demonstra

iii) Remediation Strategy for conta

iv) Materials Management Plan (M

v) Volume calculations.

vi) Planning permission for the dev

vii) Contractual details to be clear

The use of the CoP is effectively industry regula

the requirements have been met and register

involvement with the preparing of the risk asse

Soils which require treatment on site (eg biore

justification and validation to prove, once treat

Site management procedures need to be in pl

remediation processes. Should the process of

excavated materials may be considered non-wa

www.brownfield-solutions.com

USE OF WASTE - GUIDANCE NOTE

o be “...any material that is discarded, or intended to be discarded

ger required in its original location, therefore it is considered to be

edial schemes relied on waste management exemptions to allow t

and and Wales removed many of the waste management licen

le for other exemptions.

n, the previous exemptions available have been replaced by CL:AIR

agement Plan”.

ction purposes, wherever possible these should be retained on si

contractor is advised to complete all works under the CL:AIRE “

RE CoP).

to be re-used:

another place on the same site without treatment;

another place on the same site following ex-situ treatment on site

another development site without treatment (Direct Transfer);

another development site following ex-situ treatment on another

to be addressed:

h and protection of the environment.

further treatment.

ollowing are required:

Local Authority & Environment Agency to confirm they have no o

k assessments for the site.

strate that the site does not present an Environmental Hazard.

ntaminated sites (or Design Statement for non-contaminated sites

n (MMP) which details material generated stockpiles and the end u

development.

ar, regarding who steps in is a contractor goes into administration

gulated, there is a requirement to appoint an independent Qualifi

isters the documentation with the Environment Agency. This pe

assessments or remedial strategy on the site.

ioremediation, stabilisation) will require an Environmental Permit

reated, this material is suitable for use.

in place to ensure that material is tracked through from excavati

of material tracking be considered non-robust, or not adhered to,

waste.

March 2013

ded...” This includes any soil from

o be waste.

ow the re-use of waste. However

licence exemptions and severely

L:AIRE Code of Practice (CoP), also

n site for engineering purposes if

“Development Industry Code of

n site;

ther site eg Hub site;

no objections to the proposed re-

sites).

nd use.

tion/liquidation.

alified Person (QP) who checks all

is person must not have had any

rmit for treatment, together with

vation stockpiling, treatment and

d to, this may fail the test whether

DI/C3977/7959



APPENDIX O

Limitations

DI/C3977/7959



Standard Limitations

This desk study report was conducted and has been prepared for the sole internal use and

reliance of the Client, Aldi Stores Limited. This report shall not be relied upon or transferred

to any other parties without the express written authorisation of BSL. If an unauthorised third

party comes into possession of this report they rely on it at their risk and the authors owe

them no duty of care or skill.

The findings and opinions conveyed via the desk study are based on information obtained

from a variety of sources as detailed within this report, which BSL believes are reliable.

Nevertheless, BSL cannot and does not guarantee the authenticity or reliability of the

information it has relied upon.

Any recommendations made in this report should be confirmed with the Regulatory bodies

and Planning Authority prior to implementation to ensure compliance.

No existing manhole covers were lifted or drainage runs inspected during the course of this

ground investigation.

The site plans enclosed in this report should not be scaled off.