environmental & geotechnical engineering

Phase II Ground

Investigation Report

www.hspconsulting.com T: 0870 600 6090

Newstead Primary School

C1862

ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

http://www.hspconsulting.com/

1

HSP Consulting Engineers Ltd Lawrence House

Meadowbank Way Eastwood

Nottingham NG16 3SB

www.hspconsulting.com

Date: 25/02/2014

Quality Assurance *Checked in accordance with HSP’s IMS (BS EN ISO 9001:2008 and BS EN ISO 14001:2004)

Author

A.Copestake B.Sc (Hons)

Checked

L.Baker B.Sc (Hons) FGS

Approved H.Pratt B.Eng (Hons), C.Eng, F.Cons.E, M.I.C.E, MI Mgt.

Report Ref No. C1862/GIR

Revision -

Status DRAFT

This document is available electronically please contact the author to obtain a copy.


Hucknall Road

Newstead Village

Nottinghamshire

NG15 0BB

Ground Investigation Report

2

Contents

1.0 Executive Summary .................................................................................................... 3

2.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 5

3.0 Review of Existing Information .................................................................................... 6

4.0 Overview of British Legislation ...................................................................................... 7

5.0 Intrusive Survey Limitations ........................................................................................ 8

6.0 Factual Report ............................................................................................................ 9

6.1 Fieldwork Procedure ................................................................................................ 9

6.2 In-Situ Testing ......................................................................................................... 9

6.3 Laboratory Testing ..................................................................................................10

6.4 General Geology and Revealed Strata ...................................................................11

6.5 Groundwater ...........................................................................................................11

7.0 Geotechnical Interpretative Report ............................................................................12

7.1 Detailed Ground Model ...........................................................................................12

7.2 Cut and Fill .............................................................................................................13

7.3 Excavations ............................................................................................................13

7.4 Foundations ............................................................................................................13

7.5 Concrete Classification ...........................................................................................14

8.0 Environmental Interpretative Report ..........................................................................15

8.1 Sample Descriptions ...............................................................................................15

8.2 Chemical Investigation ...........................................................................................15

8.3 Metals and Inorganic Chemical Analysis ................................................................16

8.4 Petroleum Hydrocarbon Analysis ...........................................................................17

8.5 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons .........................................................................17

8.6 Water Supply ..........................................................................................................19

8.7 Human Health Mitigation ........................................................................................19

8.8 Ground Gas Risk Assessment................................................................................20

8.9 Drainage .................................................................................................................20

9.0 Engineers Conclusions and Risk Mitigation ...............................................................21

10.0 Appendices .............................................................................................................22

3

1.0 Executive Summary

1.0.1 HSP Consulting was commissioned by GF Tomlinson Ltd on behalf of

Nottinghamshire County Council to undertake an intrusive ground investigation upon

the area of land currently occupied by the existing Newstead Primary School,

Hucknall Road, Newstead Village, Nottinghamshire, NG15 0BB (approximate

National Grid Reference E451872, N352804).

1.0.2 The development plans for the site indicate a single storey building is proposed to

the east of the existing school buildings with proposed parking areas also indicated

to the southwest. The proposed development plans for the site can be seen in

Appendix I.

1.0.3 The physical methods of investigation employed were 5No. window sample

boreholes to a maximum depth 4.37m below existing ground level (begl), 2No.

foundation excavation pits and a soakaway test pit. The Exploratory Hole Logs and

Foundation Excavation Pit Drawing can be found within Appendix II, with Soakaway

Test Results as Appendix III.

1.0.4 The exploratory holes revealed a downward strata succession comprising made

ground materials to a maximum depth of 1.60m begl (WS1). Beneath the made

ground deposits strata of the Lenton Sandstone Formation were encountered. These

deposits generally consisted of loose to dense brown slightly gravelly silty Sand

becoming brown-red with increased depth.

1.0.5 It is recommended that the proposed building foundations should be deepened

through any Made Ground to bear at least 200mm into the natural granular materials

or a minimum of 1.20m. At 1.20m medium dense slightly silty Sand was

encountered within; WS3, WS4, & WS5. Made Ground has been exhibited within

WS1 and WS2 at a maximum depth of 1.80m begl. It is suggested that Strip

Foundations could be extended through any Made Ground to the natural Sand with a

10 kNm2 leen mix concrete.

1.0.6 It is considered appropriate to adopt a basic Design Sulphate Class of DS-3 together

with an Aggressive Chemical Environment for Concrete (ACEC) of AC-3 when

considering the concrete classification.

4

1.0.7 Gas and groundwater monitoring has not been commissioned as part of this

assessment. At this stage gas monitoring is not considered to be required as we

understand that the proposed single storey system built unit(s) are elevated above

ground level on brick plinths or legs which leaves a clear void beneath. Confirmation

from the Client’s chosen contractor regarding void cladding materials and ventilation

is recommended. Should a traditional structure be proposed at the site it would be

prudent to undertake gas monitoring in order to obtain an indication of the ground

gas regime at the site and allow recommendations for gas protection measures to be

incorporated within any design.

1.0.8 Soakaway testing was undertaken in a specially constructed trial test pit (SK1). The

test results are reported in Appendix III. Analysis of the results indicates an

extremely poor infiltration rate range of less than 10-11m/s in the soakaway test

location. Comparison of this data with table 11.1 Permeability and Drainage

Characteristics of Soils Terzaghi and Peck indicates the ground to be practically

impervious strata, considered attributable to high clay content within the underlying

natural granular strata.

1.0.9 The executive summary contains an overview of key findings and conclusions.

However, no reliance should be placed on the executive summary until the whole of

the report has been read. Other sections of the report may contain information which

puts into context the findings noted within the executive summary.

1.0.10 If development proposals or boundary lines change, the client should contact HSP

Consulting Engineers Ltd to ensure that these changes do not present a necessity

for further work or further consideration of the findings of this report.

5

2.0 Introduction

2.0.1 HSP Consulting was instructed by GF Tomlinson Ltd on behalf of Nottinghamshire

County Council to carry out an intrusive geotechnical and environmental

investigation of the site. The development plans for the site indicate a single storey

building is proposed to the east of the existing school buildings with proposed

parking areas also indicated to the southwest. The proposed development plans for

the site can be seen in Appendix I.

2.0.2 This report presents an outline of the existing ground conditions at the site and gives

recommendations regarding the proposed foundations and any remedial measures

that may be required with respect to any contamination.

2.0.3 This report presents the findings of the intrusive chemical, physical and visual

investigations that were undertaken at Newstead Primary School, Hucknall Road,

Newsted Village, Nottinghamshire NG15 0BB (approximate National Grid Reference

E451872, N352804).

2.0.4 This investigation has been carried out in general accordance with the following

publications with the aim of providing an appropriate site investigation report for the

development with respect to the construction and environmental impact (when

considering the BREEAM assessment):

BS5930: 1999 – Code of Practice for Site Investigations

BS1377: 1990 (Parts 1 to 9) – Methods of Tests for Soils for Civil Engineering

BS10175: 2011 + A1 2013 – Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites

6

3.0 Review of Existing Information

3.0.1 HSP has not been made aware of any other previous reports for the subject site.

However some existing outline information has been gleaned from the following

sources where it has been useful and necessary to the investigation in the absence

of a Phase I report being required:

1. Site walkover survey

2. British Geological Survey

a) Map Viewer

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/data/mapViewers/home.html

b) Lexion of Named Rock Units

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/lexicon/

c) 1996. Derby Sheet 125. Solid and Drift Geology. 1:50 000.

3. National Grid mapping (where necessary)

4. Environment Agency

a) What's in your back yard

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/37793.aspx

3.0.2 Bedrock geology across the site is recorded to comprise the Lenton Sandstone

Formation of late Permian to Triassic age. The Lenton Sandstone Formation is

described as sandstone, very fine- to medium-grained. Argillaceous, red-brown with

buff mottles, cross-stratified; subordinate beds of red-brown mudstone and

conglomerate. Bedrock geology of the Erdlington Formation is recorded adjacent to

the eastern boundary of the site and is recorded to comprise red-brown mudstone

with subordinate siltstone and sandstone.

3.0.3 Superficial deposits are not recorded to be present across the site.

3.0.4 The Lenton Sandstone Formation geology across the site is recorded as a Principle

Aquifer, described by the Environment Agency as; layers of rock or drift deposits that

have high intergranular and/or fracture permeability - meaning they usually provide a

high level of water storage. They may support water supply and/or river base flow on

a strategic scale. Predominantly aquifers previously designated as major aquifer.

3.0.5 The adjacent Edlington Formation mudstone and sandstone geology is recorded as

a Secondary ‘B’ Aquifer. Secondary aquifers are described by the EA as a wide

range of rock layers or drift deposits with an equally wide range of water permeability

and storage. Secondary ‘B’ aquifers are permeable layers capable of supporting

water supplies at a local rather than strategic scale, and in some cases forming an

important source of base flow to rivers. These are generally aquifers formerly

classified as minor aquifers.

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/data/mapViewers/home.html

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/lexicon/

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/37793.aspx

7

4.0 Overview of British Legislation

4.0.1 The contaminated land regime covering historical land contamination is set out within

Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) 1990. This legislation adopts a

‘Suitable for Use’ approach by;

Ensuring land is suitable for its current use and that no contamination is causing

unacceptable risk to human health or the environment;

Ensuring that where land is used for a new use, it is made suitable for that use under

the planning regime;

Limiting requirements for remediation to the work that is necessary to prevent

unacceptable risks to human health or the environment in relation to the current or

future use of the land for which planning permission is being sought.

4.0.2 Under the planning and development control regime, as set out in the ‘Department

for Communities and Local Government (March 2012) National Planning Policy

Framework’, the aim is to ensure that there are no unacceptable risks to either

receptors relevant to Part 2A, or to others that may be covered by other regimes,

taking into account the proposed new land use.

8

5.0 Intrusive Survey Limitations

5.0.1 This report contains the details of an Intrusive Geo-Environmental Assessment

carried out by HSP Consulting Engineers Ltd at Newstead Primary School, Hucknall

Road, Newstead Village, Nottinghamshire NG15 0BB. This report has been prepared

for GF Tomlinson Ltd on behalf of Nottinghamshire County Council and must not be

relied upon by any other party without the explicit written permission of HSP

Consulting. All parties to this report do not intend any of the terms of the Contracts

(Rights of Third Party Act 1999) to apply to this report.

5.02 There may be special conditions appertaining to the site that have not been revealed

by the exploratory holes and field testing (where applicable) that are therefore not

taken into account within this report.

5.03 Whilst the report may express an opinion on the possible configuration of the strata

between or beyond the exploratory holes or on the possible presence of features

based on either visual, verbal, or published evidence, this is for guidance only and no

liability can be accepted for its accuracy.

5.0.4 Any comments made on ground water conditions are based on the observations

made at the time of the investigation unless otherwise stated. It should therefore be

noted that the groundwater levels might vary due to seasonal variations or other

affects.

5.0.5 This report has been based upon observations made within the site boundary as

marked in Appendix I. Should this site boundary alter in any way, the Geotechnical

Team at HSP Consulting should be notified in order to reassess if any further works

are required or to ensure that the findings of this report remain wholly applicable.

5.0.6 Please note that this report does not purport to provide definitive legal advice.

5.0.7 The executive summary contains an overview of key findings and conclusions.

However no reliance should be placed on the executive summary until the whole of

the report has been read. Other sections of the report may contain information which

puts into context the findings noted within the executive summary.

9

6.0 Factual Report

6.1 Fieldwork Procedure

6.1.1 The physical methods of investigation employed were 5No. window sample

boreholes to a maximum depth 4.37m below existing ground level (begl), 2No.

foundation excavation pits and a soakaway test pit. The Exploratory Hole Logs and

Foundation Excavation Pit Drawing can be found within Appendix II, Soakway Test

Results are included as Appendix III.

6.1.2 The positions of the exploratory locations are shown on the appended Exploratory

Hole Location Plan (contained in Appendix IV).

6.1.3 Fragmentary bulk and disturbed samples were recovered from materials revealed

within the window sample boreholes. Geo-environmental samples were also

obtained specifically for contamination testing.

6.1.4 The samples were taken to a UKAS accredited laboratory for further examination

and testing.

6.2 In-Situ Testing

6.2.1 Standard Penetration Tests (SPT’s) were carried out within each of the window

sample boreholes at 1.00m intervals. This testing has been undertaken in

accordance with BS 1377:1990 and the results are included on the appended

borehole logs (Appendix II).

10

6.3 Laboratory Testing

6.3.1 The laboratory testing schedules were prepared by HSP Consulting.

6.3.2 Geotechnical testing including the following has been undertaken at a UKAS

accredited laboratory as part of the intrusive investigatory works at the site:

Plasticity Index

Natural Moisture Content

Particle Size Distribution

Sulphate Analyses

6.3.3 The geotechnical test results can be found within Appendix V.

6.3.4 The geotechnical laboratory testing has been carried out in accordance with BS

1377: 1990 using calibrated equipment specified for the British Standard.

6.3.5 In addition to the geotechnical testing outlined above selected soil samples were

tested at a UKAS accredited laboratory for the presence of a selected suite of

contaminants as outlined below:

Arsenic Boron Cadmium

Chromium (III & VI) Copper Cyanide (free & Total)

Lead Mercury Nickel

PAH (speciated) Phenol pH

Selenium Sulphate (total) Sulphide

Sulphur TPH (speciated) Zinc

All values total unless otherwise stated.

6.3.6 Selected samples of Made Ground were also screened for asbestos, with an

instruction to identify any detected fibres.

6.3.7 The contamination testing outlined above was carried out during the period 30th

January to 18th February 2014. The results are included in this report as Appendix

VI.

11

6.4 General Geology and Revealed Strata

6.4.1 The site lies in an area where, from the British Geological Survey data sheet 125

Derby, the underlying geology is expected to comprise red-brown mudstone and

sandstone. It is considered likely that the underlying strata may have weathered to

clay and sand at or close to the surface. Superficial deposits are not expected.

6.4.2 The exploratory holes undertaken at the site have revealed a general downwards

strata succession of:

MADE GROUND

- MADE GROUND: Tarmacadam overlying dark

grey sub-base material of angular to subangular

limestone gravel, clinker and shale. (WS1 &

WS2)

- MADE GROUND: red-grey sandy fine to coarse

angular gravel of shale, brick and concrete.

(WS1 & WS2)

- MADE GROUND: dark grey-brown slightly

gravelly slightly clayey sandy silt. (WS1 & WS2)

- MADE GROUND: dark brown slightly gravelly

silty fine to coarse sand with brick fragments.

(WS3 & WS4)

LENTON SANDSTONE

FORMATION

- Loose to medium dense light brown slightly

gravelly silty fine to coarse SAND.

- Medium dense to dense red-brown silty fine to

medium SAND.

6.5 Groundwater

6.5.1 Groundwater was not encountered during the exploratory drilling at the site. It should

be noted that gas and groundwater monitoring has not been commissioned as part

of the ground investigation.

6.5.3 Shallow groundwater entries may be encountered during earthworks operations

including foundation excavations. However, traditional sump and pump dewatering

should be sufficient within all excavations at the site if required.

12

7.0 Geotechnical Interpretative Report

7.1 Detailed Ground Model

7.1.1 Topsoil

7.1.1.1 Topsoil materials were encountered within window sample locations WS3, WS4 and

WS5 during the intrusive investigation works. Topsoil was recorded to a maximum

depth of 0.30mbegl (WS3 & WS5).

7.1.2 Made Ground

7.1.2.1 Made ground materials were encountered in window sample locations WS1 to WS4

during the intrusive investigation. Tarmacadam hardstanding over a crushed

limestone tarmacadam gravel sub-base material was encountered in two locations

(WS1 & WS2). Made ground materials underlying topsoil and tarmacadam were

generally recorded to comprise red-grey-brown sandy gravel/silt/sand with brick, ash

and concrete fragments to a maximum proven depth of 1.60mbegl (WS1).

7.1.3 Lenton Sandstone Formation

7.1.3.1 Natural granular deposits belonging to the weathered Lenton Sandstone Formation

were encountered from 0.30m begl (WS5) to terminal borehole depth (4.37mbegl in

WS1). These deposits generally consisted of loose to dense brown slightly gravelly

silty sand becoming brown-red with increased depth.

7.1.3.3 A series of Standard Penetration Tests (SPT’s) undertaken in natural strata within

the boreholes have returned a SPT ‘N’ values in the range of 4 to 10 at 1.00m depth

and 10 to 16 at 2.00m depth generally confirming sands of loose to medium dense

strength at these depths Table 1 (below) summarises the N values at depth across

the site within the natural strata.

7.1.3.4 Table 1

Depth Range of ‘N’ Values ‘N’ Mean

1m

2m

4 - 10

10 - 16

7.7

13.0

3m 19 - 50+ 34.2

7.1.3.5 Two particle size distribution tests have been undertaken to confirm the visual

description and engineering behaviour of the soils. The results are included in

Appendix V

13

7.2 Cut and Fill

7.2.1 Cut and fill operations are not anticipated at the site from review of the development

proposals. Should the overall scheme alter, an Engineer from HSP Consulting

should be contacted in the event that further discussion and comment is required.

7.3 Excavations

7.3.1 Excavations to proposed formation level for new foundations and infrastructure

should generally be readily achievable adopting standard excavation plant. Based

solely upon the Trial Pit undertaken for the Soakaway Testing at the site random and

potentially severe falls should not be anticipated from the faces of near vertically

sided unsupported excavations carried out at the site. However, where personnel are

required to enter near vertically sided excavations, it is considered that full support

should be provided to the full depth of all excavations.

7.3.2 It is recommended that all support systems are continually assessed by fully trained

or experienced personnel.

7.3.3 Shallow groundwater is not anticipated across the site based on groundwater

observations recorded during the fieldwork. It should be noted that groundwater

levels may vary due to seasonal variations or other effects.

7.4 Foundations

7.4.1 The development plans for the site indicate a single storey building is proposed to

the east of the existing school buildings with proposed parking areas also indicated

to the southwest. The proposed development plans for the site can be seen in

Appendix I. Should development plans alter a geotechnical engineer from HSP

should be consulted to review the foundation options.

7.4.2 For the purpose of this foundation assessment the information gained from

boreholes WS1 to WS5 has been used.

7.4.3 The natural granular soils found within all of the boreholes in at least loose condition

are considered suitable as a formation layer.

14

7.4.4 Should a traditional foundation option be chosen the below table indicates the

indicative allowable bearing pressure (ABP) that could be achieved using strip

foundations across the building footprint. An ABP has been calculated using the

mean of the corrected SPT (N1)60 values for the borehole group at 1m intervals from

the existing ground level.

7.4.5 Table 2

Depth (m) (N1)60 Eurocode 7 Soil

Density Description

Approximate ABP (kN/m2) – 0.60m

wide strip footing

1.0 7.14 Loose 123

2.0 13.26 Medium 307







10 kNm2 leen mix concrete. The values within ‘Table 2’ above incorporate a factor of

safety of 3 and total settlements are not expected to exceed approximately 25mm,

thereby keeping differential settlements within acceptable limits. Loadings for the

single storey development are anticipated to be less than half of the calculated ABP.

7.5 Concrete Classification

7.5.1 The results of sulphate and pH testing carried out on selected soil samples taken

during this investigation have been compared with the recommendations outlined in

BRE Special Digest 1, Part 1: 2005.

7.5.2 The guidelines given in BRE Special Digest 1 are based upon a site classification

relating to its previous usage. It is considered appropriate to define this site as a

‘brownfield site’ location for the purposes of concrete classification.

7.5.3 On the basis of the above, it is considered appropriate to adopt a basic Design

Sulphate Class of DS-3 together with and Aggressive Chemical Environment for

Concrete (ACEC) of AC-3.

15

8.0 Environmental Interpretative Report

8.0.1 Reference to the documentation published by the Department of Environment, Food

and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the Environment Agency has been made with

respect to the potential contaminants considered likely to affect the site.

8.0.2 The Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment (CLEA) Model published by DEFRA

and the Environment Agency (EA) contains Soil Guideline Values. These SGV’s are

set according to proposed land use. For the purposes of this report, ‘Residential

without plant uptake’ land use figures have generally been adopted where necessary

with parameters within the CLEA software adapted to model a school building.

8.0.3 The CLEA Model includes only selected contaminants and therefore where there is

an absence of a published SGV for one of the analytes contained within the testing

suite for this site, the Land Quality Management Ltd (LQM) and Chartered Institute of

Environmental Health (CIEH) Generic Assessment Criteria (GAC) 2nd Edition have

been utilised.

8.1 Sample Descriptions

8.1.1 Samples were selected from the top metre of each borehole at the site and sealed in

appropriate containers. Three samples were taken from the development area to

provide a basis for characterising the materials to outline the potential impacts on

human health and any environmental receptors from any contamination found.

8.1.2 The samples selected from the site were as follows;

WS1 @ 0.45m MADE GROUND: Sandy gravelly clayey silt

WS2 @ 0.20m MADE GROUND: Sandy gravel

WS3 @ 0.30m MADE GROUND: Gravelly silty sand

WS4 @ 0.40m MADE GROUND: Gravelly silty sand

8.2 Chemical Investigation

8.2.1 Samples chosen were analysed for a basic suite of common contaminants including

fractionated Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons and speciated Polycyclic Aromatic

Hydrocarbons. The results of the analysis can be collated into three sets, each

specific to a generic type of contaminant.

Inorganic Analysis

Petroleum Hydrocarbon Analysis

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Analysis

16

8.2.2 Geo-environmental samples were retained specifically for chemical analysis from the

exploratory holes and stored in appropriately refrigerated containers until delivery to

UKAS accredited laboratory No. 2183 Chemtest Ltd.

8.2.3 Extracts of the reports produced by Chemtest Ltd are reproduced within the text

where they are considered relevant to discussion. However, full copies of the

laboratory reports are contained within the appendices (Appendix VI).

8.3 Metals and Inorganic Chemical Analysis

8.3.1 The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the

Environment Agency (EA) have Published Soil Guideline Values (SGV’s) for only

selected contaminants within our testing suite. SGV’s have been published for

arsenic, cadmium, lead (withdrawn but not currently revised), mercury, nickel and

selenium. Review of the test results indicates that none of the individual contaminant

concentrations exceeds the relevant SGV for a School use under the classification of

a ‘Residential without plant uptake’ end land use scenario.

8.3.2 Land Quality Management Ltd (LQM) and Chartered Institute of Environmental

Health (CIEH) Generic Assessment Criteria GACs have been made available for

boron, beryllium, chromium (III & IV), copper, vanadium and zinc. Review of the test

results indicates that none of the individual contaminant concentrations of metals or

inorganic contaminants exceeds the relevant GAC for the site.

8.3.3 Three samples of Made Ground were scheduled for an asbestos screen and

identification. The results indicate no asbestos fibres were detected.

8.3.4 It is therefore considered that identified metals and inorganic contaminants do not

pose a risk to future end users at the site.

8.3.5 It should be remembered that the approval of the Local Environmental Health Officer

will be required with respect to the soil contamination proposals.

17

8.4 Petroleum Hydrocarbon Analysis

8.4.1 Following the withdrawal of the ICRCL trigger values for TPH contamination, the

Environment Agency has published guidance for the modelling of TPH data within

the CLEA framework. In general the guidance is to speciate the total fraction into

several smaller equivalent carbon fractions.

8.4.2 No Soil Guideline Values are currently published for any Petroleum Hydrocarbon

equivalent band. However the LQM CIEH has produced GACs for the TPH working

groups.

8.4.3 The four soil samples tested for the contamination suite have also been submitted for

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon analysis. All of the samples analysed recorded results

above laboratory limits of detection within at least one TPH fraction range. However,

exceedances above the relevant GAC have not been recorded within any of the

samples analysed.

8.4.4 It is therefore considered that Petroleum Hydrocarbon contamination should not pose

a significant risk of significant harm to potential receptors at the site.

8.4.5 The approval of the Local Environmental Health Officer should be sought in respect

of the soil contamination proposals.

8.5 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

8.5.1 The soil samples tested for the contamination suite have also been submitted for

PAH analysis. All of the samples taken from the top 1.0m of the site recorded

exceedances above the GAC for benzo(a)pyrene, and in addition to this a number of

other associated PAHs were recorded above their respective GACs across the

dataset.

8.5.2 SSACs for all of the determinands exhibiting concentrations above their relevant

GACs have been generated using the CLEA model contained within Appendix VII

with pertinent extracts presented within Table 3 below.

18

8.5.3 Table 3

Determinand SSAC (mg/kg) No. of Results

Above SSAC

Max Con.

(mg/kg)

Benzo(a)pyrene 1.59 3 11.0

Benzo(a)anthracene 10.95 1 15.0

Chrysene 15.89 0 14.0

Benzo(b)flouranthene 11.29 0 8.3

Benzo(k)flouranthene 15.90 0 10.0

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.76* 1 2.2

Ideno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 6.83 0 6.1

*GAC used in lieu of lower SSAC

8.5.4 Elevations of Benzo(a)pyrene are well above the SSAC in 3 of the 4 samples

analysed. In addition associated PAHs of benzo(a)anthracene and

dibenzo(a,h)anthracene were also recorded above their relevant SSAC within

sample WS3 @ 0.30m. It is of note that the highest concentration of Benzo(a)pyrene

exhibited within the sample from WS3 @ 0.3m was 11 mg/kg which is below the

‘Commercial’ LQM CIEH GAC.

8.5.5 The identified elevated PAH concentrations were all exhibited within shallow Made

Ground at the site. We would anticipate that further testing of the underlying natural

Sands may prove these materials to be suitable with no PAH exceedances. In this

scenario it would be recommended that where landscaping is evident within the

proposed scheme a cover system of a minimum depth of 0.60m should be put in

place (suitably designed) where Made Ground is currently evident at depths greater

than the cover system (It should be understood that the formation level for design

may influence the excavation depth necessary to implement any cover system

detail). Where shallower Made Ground exists the depth of cover could be equal to

the excavation of the full depth of Made Ground. The proposed building footprint and

any external hard surfacing will act as a break layer mitigating any potential pollutant

linkages for human health and therefore the materials should be deemed suitable in

these areas.

8.5.6 Where excavated Made Ground from landscaped areas cannot be redistributed

beneath hard cover due to any earthworks balance it may need to be taken off site to

a suitably licensed facility. Waste Acceptance Criteria Testing has not been

undertaken on Made Ground materials from the site as part of this investigation.

Where a Total PAH of 100mg/kg, or a Total TPH of 500mg/kg is exceeded (i.e. WS3

@ 0.30m) it is unlikely that the materials could be established to conform to ‘Inert’

waste parameters.

8.5.7 The approval of the local Environmental Health Officer should be sough with respect

to the soil contamination assessment and proposals.

19

8.6 Water Supply

8.6.1 The environmental testing for the site has been compared to the following document

in order to assess the most appropriate pipe material that should be used upon the

site for mains water supply:

‘Guidance for the selection of water supply pipes to be used in Brownfield sites – UK

Water Industry Research – Ref: 10/WM/03/21.’

8.6.2 It is considered that specialist materials could be required for water supply pipes at

the site so consideration should be given to their location and depth where they are

taken through Made Ground. If laid within natural Sand deposits normal pipe

materials should be sufficient. However confirmation of supply pipes should be

sought from Severn Trent Water and this information passed to them for review.

8.7 Human Health Mitigation

8.7.1 Review of the test results indicates that some individual contaminant concentrations

present minor exceedances of the relevant SSAC’s or LQM CIEH GAC’s for a

School use under the classification of a ‘Residential without plant uptake’ end land

use scenario.

8.7.2 Where materials are proposed to remain in situ or be used within any earthwork

operations and be placed beneath hard standing it can be considered that the hard

standing will act as a break layer mitigating any risk to the end user of the site. In

areas of proposed landscaping it would be recommended that a cover system be put

in place to a minimum depth of 0.60m.

8.7.3 Where excavated Made Ground cannot be redistributed beneath hard cover due to

any earthworks balance it may need to be taken off site to a suitably licensed facility.

Waste Acceptance Criteria Testing has not been undertaken on Made Ground

materials from the site as part of this investigation. Where a Total PAH of 100mg/kg,

or a Total TPH of 500mg/kg is exceeded it is unlikely that the materials could be

established to conform to ‘Inert’ waste parameters.

8.7.4 HSP would recommend that the guidance in HSG 66 ‘Protection of workers and the

General Public during Redevelopment of Contaminated Land’ should be followed

during any development works undertaken on site. Site workers should take

precautions to ensure that they wear sufficient PPE during development to ensure a

minimum contact with any generated dust or with exposed soils. All workers having

manual contact with exposed soils should wear gloves. Following contact with soils

hands should be washed before eating or smoking.

20

8.8 Ground Gas Risk Assessment

8.8.1 Ground gas monitoring has not been commissioned as part of this assessment.

However, made ground at depths of over 1.0m were recorded in WS1 and WS2, this

has the potential to generate potentially hazardous ground gases. At this stage gas

monitoring is not considered to be required as we understand that the proposed

single storey system built unit(s) are elevated above ground level on brick plinths or

legs which leaves a clear void beneath. Confirmation from the Client’s chosen

contractor regarding void cladding materials and ventilation is recommended.

8.8.2 Should a traditional structure be proposed at the site it would be prudent to

undertake gas monitoring in order to obtain an indication of the ground gas regime at

the site and allow recommendations for gas protection measures to be incorporated

within any design.

8.8.3 The approval of the Local Environmental Health Officer should be sought with

respect to the gas protection proposals.

8.9 Drainage

8.9.1 Soakaway testing was undertaken in a specially constructed trial test pit (SK1) test

results are reported in Appendix III. Analysis of the results indicates an extremely

poor infiltration rate range of less than 10-11m/s in the soakaway test location.

Comparison of this data with table 11.1 Permeability and Drainage Characteristics of

Soils Terzaghi and Peck indicates the ground to be practically impervious strata,

considered attributable to high clay content within the underlying natural granular

strata.

21

9.0 Engineers Conclusions and Risk Mitigation

9.0.1 It is the opinion of HSP Consulting that the information collated within this report

gleaned from the intrusive site investigation undertaken to recommend that there is

sufficient evidence to suggest that the site should pose no significant risk to Human

Health or any Environmental Receptors.

9.0.2 The exploratory holes revealed a downward strata succession comprising made

ground materials to a maximum depth of 1.60m begl (WS1). Beneath the made

ground deposits strata of the Lenton Sandstone Formation were encountered. These

deposits generally consisted of loose to dense brown slightly gravelly silty sand

becoming brown-red with increased depth.







10 kNm2 leen mix concrete.

9.0.4 It is considered appropriate to adopt a basic Design Sulphate Class of DS-3 together

with an Aggressive Chemical Environment for Concrete (ACEC) of AC-3 when

considering the concrete classification.

9.0.5 Gas and groundwater monitoring has not been commissioned as part of this

assessment. At this stage gas monitoring is not considered to be required as we

understand that the proposed single storey system built unit(s) are elevated above

ground level on brick plinths or legs which leaves a clear void beneath. Confirmation

from the Client’s chosen contractor regarding void cladding materials and ventilation

is recommended.Should a traditional structure be proposed at the site it would be

prudent to undertake gas monitoring in order to obtain an indication of the ground

gas regime at the site and allow recommendations for gas protection measures to be

incorporated within any design.

9.0.6 Soakaway testing was undertaken in a specially constructed trial test pit (SK1) test

results are reported in Appendix III. Analysis of the results indicates an extremely

poor infiltration rate range of less than 10-11m/s in the soakaway test location.

Comparison of this data with table 11.1 Permeability and Drainage Characteristics of

Soils Terzaghi and Peck indicates the ground to be practically impervious strata,

considered attributable to high clay content within the underlying natural granular

strata.

22

10.0 Appendices Appendix I – Proposed Development Plan

Appendix II – Exploratory Hole Logs

Appendix III – Soakaway Test Results

Appendix IV – Site Investigation Layout Plan

Appendix V – Laboratory Test Results - Geotechnical

Appendix VI – Laboratory Test Results – Chemical

Appendix VII – CLEA 1.06

Appendix I



PROJECT No: DRAWING No:

DESIGN/DRAWN : DATE:

SCALE@SIZE : ISSUE:

TITLE:

PROJECT:

CLIENT:

DO NOT SCALE

NOTES:

Do not scale

NTS FINAL

Proposed Development Layout Plan

AC Feb 2014

PDLP C1862

Lawrence House, Meadowbank Way, Eastwood, Nottingham, NG16 3SB

Tel: 0870 600 6090 Fax: 0870 600 6091



- Proposed Development Area

© HSP Consulting Engineers Ltd © Crown Copyright.

WS2

WS6

WS5

WS4

WS3

WS1

http://www.abatech.com/

Appendix II



Well WaterStrikes Depth (m)

Depth Level Legend(m) (m AOD) Stratum Description

Project Name

Location:

Client: Dates:

Level:

Co-ords:Project No.

Borehole No

Scale

Logged By

Remarks:

Hole TypeNewstead Primary School

No groundwater was encountered during the drilling process.1.2. Borehole was terminated at 4.37m due to refusal and backfilled with arisings.

Newstead Village, Nottinghamshire

GF Tomlinson Building Ltd

Type

Type

Samples & In Situ TestingResults

Results

C1862

HSP Consulting (Nottingham)Tel: 08706006090Fax: 08706009091email: [email protected]

-

-

27/01/2014 JPJ

WS1

WS

Hol

eBA

SE

3.1

(Bld

408

) Sta

ndar

d B

oreh

ole

Log

v2 d

ated

27t

h N

ov 0

3

0.45

1.00

1.30

2.00

2.50-3.00

3.00

4.00

ES

SPT

D

SPT

B

SPT

SPT

N=14(2,3/

3,3,4,4)

N=14(1,3/

4,3,4,3)

N=20(4,5/

4,5,5,6)

50(10,10/

12,12,26 for 70mm)

0.07

0.20

0.40

0.90

1.60

2.40

4.37

MADE GROUND - tarmacadam.(MG)

MADE GROUND - crushed limestone sub-base material.(MG)

MADE GROUND - grey sandy gravel. Sand is fine to coarse. Gravelis fine to coarse angular to subangular of brick and concrete.(MG)

MADE GROUND - dark grey sandy gravelly clayey silt. Sand is fineto coarse. Gravel is fine to coarse rounded of quartz.(MG)

MADE GROUND - grey brown sandy slightly gravelly slightly clayeysilt. Sand is fine to coarse. Gravel is fine to coarse roundedof quartz.(MG)

Medium dense brown mottled light brown slightly gravelly siltyfine to coarse SAND. Gravel is fine to medium rounded quartz.

Medium dense red slightly silty fine to medium SAND.

. . . becoming red-grey below 3.00m depth.

End of Borehole at 4.37 m

1

2

3

4

1:25

Sheet 1 of 1



Project Name

Location:

Client: Dates:

Level:

Co-ords:Project No.

Borehole No

Scale

Logged By

Remarks:





Type

Type


Results

C1862


-

-

27/01/2014 JPJ

WS2

WS

Hol

eBA

SE

3.1

(Bld

408

) Sta

ndar

d B

oreh

ole

Log

v2 d

ated

27t

h N

ov 0

3

0.20

1.00

2.00

3.00

3.80

ES

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

N=8(2,2/

2,1,2,3)

N=16(3,3/

3,4,4,5)

N=32(4,6/

7,8,9,8)

50(10,13/

17,18,15 for 50mm)

0.10

0.50

0.80

1.40

2.40

4.15

MADE GROUND - tarmacadam.(MG)

MADE GROUND - black sandy gravel. Gravel is fine to coarseangular tarmacadam, clinker and shale.(MG)

MADE GROUND - red grey sandy fine to coarse angular gravel ofshale.(MG)

MADE GROUND - grey brown slightly gravelly slightly clayey sandysilt. Gravel is rounded of quartz.(MG)

Medium dense brown mottled light brown slightly gravelly siltyfine to coarse SAND. Gravel is fine to medium quartz.

Medium dense red slightly silty fine to medium SAND.

. . . becoming light grey in colour below 3.40m.


1

2

3

4

1:25

Sheet 1 of 1



Project Name

Location:

Client: Dates:

Level:

Co-ords:Project No.

Borehole No

Scale

Logged By

Remarks:





Type

Type


Results

C1862


-

-

27/01/2014 JPJ

WS3

WS

Hol

eBA

SE

3.1

(Bld

408

) Sta

ndar

d B

oreh

ole

Log

v2 d

ated

27t

h N

ov 0

3

0.30

1.00

2.00

3.00

ES

SPT

SPT

SPT

N=9(1,2/

2,2,3,2)

N=14(2,3/

3,4,4,3)

50(9,10/

13,14,23 for 65mm)

0.30

0.50

1.20

3.36

Grass overlying brown TOPSOIL.

MADE GROUND - dark brown slightly gravelly silty fine to coarsesand. Sand is fine to coarse. Gravel is angular to rounded brickand quartz.(MG)

Loose light brown slightly gravelly fine to coarse SAND. Gravelis fine to coarse angular to subrounded quartz.

Medium dense brown-red slightly silty fine to medium SAND.


1

2

3

4

1:25

Sheet 1 of 1



Project Name

Location:

Client: Dates:

Level:

Co-ords:Project No.

Borehole No

Scale

Logged By

Remarks:





Type

Type


Results

C1862


-

-

27/01/2014 JPJ

WS4

WS

Hol

eBA

SE

3.1

(Bld

408

) Sta

ndar

d B

oreh

ole

Log

v2 d

ated

27t

h N

ov 0

3

0.40

1.00

2.00

2.70-3.00

3.00

4.00

ES

SPT

SPT

B

SPT

SPT

N=4(1,1/

1,1,1,1)

N=10(2,2/

2,3,2,3)

N=19(2,3/

4,5,5,5)

50(25 for 30mm/50 for 60mm)

0.20

0.50

1.20

4.09


MADE GROUND - brown slightly gravelly very silty fine to coarsesand. Gravel is fine to coarse angular brick.(MG)

Loose light brown slightly silty slightly gravelly fine tocoarse SAND. Gravel is fine to coarse rounded of mixedlithology.

Medium dense brown-red slightly silty fine to medium SAND.


1

2

3

4

1:25

Sheet 1 of 1



Project Name

Location:

Client: Dates:

Level:

Co-ords:Project No.

Borehole No

Scale

Logged By

Remarks:


No groundwater was encountered during the drilling process.1.2. Borehole was terminated at 3.35m due to refusal and backfilled with arising.



Type

Type


Results

C1862


-

-

27/01/2014 JPJ

WS5

WS

Hol

eBA

SE

3.1

(Bld

408

) Sta

ndar

d B

oreh

ole

Log

v2 d

ated

27t

h N

ov 0

3

1.00

1.60-2.00

2.00

3.00

SPT

B

SPT

SPT

N=10(1,2/

3,3,2,2)

N=13(2,3/

3,3,4,3)

50(11,11/

19,31 for 50mm)

0.30

1.20

2.70

3.35


Loose to medium dense light brown slightly gravelly silty fineto coarse SAND. Gravel is fine to medium subrounded to roundedquartz.

Medium dense red brown silty fine to medium SAND.

. . . becoming yellow in colour below 2.60m depth.

Dense red very silty fine to medium SAND.


1

2

3

4

1:25

Sheet 1 of 1

Foundation Exploratory Pit

G.L

Existing Brick Wall

Foundation

FEP1

Land Drain

300

Project

Title

Checked by.

Drawn by.

HSP Drg. No.

Client Scale (A4)

Date.

Rev.

DetailsDateByRev. Chkd

Drawing Status

p

c o n s u l t i n g

h


Tel: 0870 600 6090 www.hspconsulting.com

sLAB

DRS

C1862-504


Sheet 1 of 2

Newstead Priamry School



1:16

Jan 2014


G.L

Existing Brick Wall

TARMACADAM

FEP1A

Foundation

10

00

20

0

Project

Title

Checked by.

Drawn by.

HSP Drg. No.

Client Scale (A4)

Date.

Rev.

DetailsDateByRev. Chkd

Drawing Status

p

c o n s u l t i n g

h



sLAB

DRS

C1862-504


Sheet 2 of 2

Newstead Priamry School



1:16

Jan 2014

Appendix III



INSITU SOAKAWAY TEST RESULTS Page 1 of 1

Trialpit No.: SK1Soil Profile:

Depth (m) Description

From: To:

0.00 0.50 TOPSOIL - Grass overlying black brown very sandy slightly gravelly topsoil.

0.50 1.50 SAND - Medium dense brown orange mottled grey slightly clayey very gravelly sand.

Sketch plan of test zoneNot to scale 0.30

All dimensions in metres.

porosity (N) = 1

(measured in laboratory)

S= Storage depth (m) 1.50

Water level from 0.48 to 1.50m.

Gives the Figures

S= 1.02 m 2.00

ap50= 2.95 m2

Vp75-25= 0.31 m3

Time Depth

(minutes) (m)

Soakaway Test Run 1 Test Date: 27/01/2014 0 0.48

2 0.484 0.496 0.498 0.50

10 0.5020 0.5140 0.5276 0.5494 0.55

115 0.55143 0.55257 0.48

From the above graph,

tp75= N/A (min) tp25= N/A (min)

Soil Infiltration Rate: f = Vp75-25 x N = N/A f run1= N/A m/s

ap50 x tp75-25

Test and analysis carried out in general accordance with BRE Digest 365 : 1991

Job No.: Newstead Primary School

Site: C1862

Client: GF Tomlinson Building Ltd

No Groundwater was

encountered

S

0.48

0.49

0.5

0.51

0.52

0.53

0.54

0.55

0.56

0.57

0.58

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260

Depth

(m

etr

es)

Time (minutes) Infiltration Data

Soakaway test was carried out over a Twenty Four Hour period and during this time, the water level had fallen very little due to the ground strata. Therefore we would interpretate the results to be WORST case. i.e pratically impervious strata with an infiltration rate of less than 10-11

Appendix IV



MH SWCL 132.30IL 131.90PIPES 100Ø

MHCL 132.48UTR

MH 9 CWCL 132.37IL 131.68PIPES 100Ø

MH 11 SWCL 132.24IL 130.98PIPE 150Ø

MH 10 SWCL 132.25IL 131.22PIPE X 150ØPIPE A 100Ø

MH 6 SWCL 132.59IL 131.49PIPE X 150ØPIPES A 100Ø

MHCL 133.13UTR



MH FWCL 133.33IL 131.71PIPE X,A 150ØPIPE B 100Ø

MH FWCL 133.46IL 132.86PIPES 100Ø

MH 8 CWCL 131.50IL 130.81PIPE 150Ø

MH CWCL 131.92IL 131.46PIPE 100Ø

MH 5 SWCL 132.27IL 131.40PIPE X 150ØPIPES A 100Ø

MH 4 SWCL 132.18IL 131.71PIPE X 150ØPIPES A,B 100Ø



MH 3 CWCL 132.34IL 131.67PIPE 150Ø

WS3

WS4

WS5

WS2

WS1

SK1

FP1A

FP1

- Trial Pit Location

KEY

- Window Sampling Borehole Location

- Foundation Pit Location

Project

Scale (A3)

Date.

Title

Client

DetailsDateByRev.

Checked by.

Drawn by.

HSP Drg. No.

Chkd

Drawing Status

Rev.

p

c o n s u l t i n g

h



s

LAB

DRS

Feb 2014

NTS

C1862-503

Ground Investigation Layout Plan

Newstead Primary School,

Hucknall Road, Newstead Village, Notts


Appendix V



This Test Report may not be reproduced other than in full, except with prior written approval of GSSL LTD Page 1 of 4

CONFIDENTIAL SOILS TEST REPORT 24 February 2014 FAO Mr Linden Baker HSP Consulting Ltd Lawrence House Meadowbank Way Eastwood, Nottingham NG16 3SB Fax: +44 (0) 870 600 6091 Dear Linden, Thank you for consulting GSSL Ltd for your Geotechnical testing needs. GSSL Ltd is pleased to submit this final interim test report for laboratory testing. Client Ref/Order No: C1862 Test Report Number: GS-C1862 Contract Reference: Newstead Primary School

Sample ID & Type(s): See page 2 Results: Page 3-4 Test(s) Requested;

Determination of Particle Size Distribution by wet method {BS 1377-2:1990 Cl. 9.2}

If you have any questions or require additional information, then please do not hesitate to contact us

Yours Sincerely

Tony Dixon Managing Director

Any opinions and interpretations expressed within this report are outside the scope of our UKAS Accreditation.


Summary of laboratory soil descriptions

Contract Ref: Newstead Primary School Report Ref. No: GS-C1862

Client ID Depth (m) Description of Sample

WS1 2.50-3.00 Silty SAND WS5 1.60-2.00 Silty SAND

Approved Signatory:

Date Reported: 24/02/14


Determination of Particle Size Distribution (Wet Sieving)

Report Ref. No: GS-C1862

GSSL Sample ID A1

Client ID WS1 @ 2.50-3.00m

Client: HSP Consulting Ltd Site: Newstead Primary School Date Sampled: N/A Sampled from: - Material Specification: N/A Sample Description: Silty SAND Sample Type: Disturbed Sampled by: Client Date Sampled: N/A Remarks: -

Sample Preparation: In accordance with BS 1377-1 & 2:1990 Certification:- Certified that the Particle Size Distribution was determined in accordance with BS 1377-2: 1990 Method 9.2 Test results reported herein do not apply to samples other than those supplied. GSSL Ltd neither accepts responsibility for nor makes claim as to the final use & purpose of the materials(s) Approved Signatory:


BS Test Sieve

(mm)

% Material Passing

100 10090 10075 100 63 10050 10040 100

37.5 10028 10020 10014 10010 1006.3 1005 100

3.35 1002 100

1.18 740.6 60

0.425 440.3 350.15 240.063 20

Soil Fraction

Total Percentage

COBBLES - GRAVEL - SAND 80 SILT /CLAY 20

Nominal aperture test sieve size (mm)

Cum

ulat

ive

perc

enta

ge p

assi

ng (%

)


Determination of Particle Size Distribution (Wet Sieving)

Report Ref. No: GS-C1862

GSSL Sample ID A2

Client ID WS5 @ 1.60-2.00m

Client: HSP Consulting Ltd Site: Newstead Primary School Date Sampled: N/A Sampled from: - Material Specification: N/A Sample Description: Silty SAND Sample Type: Disturbed Sampled by: Client Date Sampled: N/A Remarks: -

Sample Preparation: In accordance with BS 1377-1 & 2:1990 Certification:- Certified that the Particle Size Distribution was determined in accordance with BS 1377-2: 1990 Method 9.2 Test results reported herein do not apply to samples other than those supplied. GSSL Ltd neither accepts responsibility for nor makes claim as to the final use & purpose of the materials(s) Approved Signatory:


BS Test Sieve

(mm)

% Material Passing

100 10090 10075 100 63 10050 10040 100

37.5 10028 10020 10014 10010 1006.3 1005 100

3.35 1002 100

1.18 820.6 71

0.425 530.3 440.15 320.063 24

Soil Fraction

Total Percentage

COBBLES - GRAVEL - SAND 76 SILT /CLAY 24

Nominal aperture test sieve size (mm)

Cum

ulat

ive

perc

enta

ge p

assi

ng (%

)

Appendix VI



FAO A Copestake

20 February 2014

Lawrence House

Meadowbank Way

HSP Consulting Engineers Limited

Eastwood Notts

NG16 3SB

Depot Road

Newmarket

CB8 0AL

Tel: 01638 606070

Dear A Copestake

Test Report Number 250237a Amended Test Report

Your Project Reference Newstead Primary School

Please find enclosed the results of analysis for the samples received 30 January 2014.

Please see additional analysis. Disregard all previous reports.

If you require any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact the Customer Services

team.

Yours sincerely

Keith Jones, Technical Manager

2183

Notes to accompany report:

• The in-house procedure is employed to identify materials and fibres in soils

• The sample is examined by stereo-binocular and polarised light microscopy

• Sample size is reduced by coning and quartering to obtain a representative sub-sample if necessary

• The bulk identification is in accordance with the requirements of the analyst guide (HSG 248)

• Samples associated with asbestos are retained for six months

• The results relate only to the items tested as supplied by the client

• Comments or interpretations are beyond the scope of UKAS accreditation

Registered in England & Wales - Registration Number 6511736 - Registered Office: 11 Depot Road Newmarket Suffolk CB8 0AL

Test Report Cover Sheet250237

LABORATORY TEST REPORT

Report Date

20 February 2014

Results of analysis of 3 samples

received 30 January 2014

Newstead Primary SchoolFAO A Copestake

Lawrence House

Meadowbank Way

Eastwood Notts

NG16 3SB


Asbestos in Soils

Login Batch No:

Chemtest ID Sample ID Sample Desc

SOP 2192

ACM Type Asbestos Identification

AJ76825 WS2 0.20 - No Asbestos DetectedAJ76826 WS3 0.30 - No Asbestos DetectedAJ76827 WS4 0.40 - No Asbestos Detected

Depth (m)

250237

Qualitative Results

The detection limit for this method is 0.001%

Lauren Quinn

Asbestos Analyst

Signed

All tests undertaken between 18-Feb-2014 and 18-Feb-2014 at our asbestos testing facility in

Coventry

Report page 1 of 1

LIMS sample ID range AJ76825 to AJ76827

FAO A Copestake

18 February 2014

Lawrence House

Meadowbank Way


Eastwood Notts

NG16 3SB

Depot Road

Newmarket

CB8 0AL

Tel: 01638 606070

Dear A Copestake

Test Report Number 250237a Amended Test Report

Your Project Reference Newstead Primary School

Please find enclosed the results of analysis for the samples received 30 January 2014.

Please see additional analysis. Disregard all previous reports.

All soil samples will be retained for a period of one month and all water samples will be retained for

7 days following the date of the test report. Should you require an extended retention period then

please detail your requirements in an email to [email protected]. Please be

aware that charges may be applicable for extended sample storage.

If you require any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact the Customer Services

team.

Yours sincerely

Keith Jones, Technical Manager

Notes to accompany report:• The sign < means 'less than'

• Tests marked 'U' hold UKAS accreditation

• Tests marked 'M' hold MCertS (and UKAS) accreditation

• Tests marked 'N' do not currently hold UKAS accreditation

• Tests marked 'S' were subcontracted to an approved laboratory

• n/e means 'not evaluated'

• i/s means 'insufficient sample'

• u/s means 'unsuitable sample'

• Comments or interpretations are outside of the scope of UKAS accreditation

• The results relate only to the items tested

• Stones represent the quantity of material removed prior to analysis

• All results are expressed on a dry weight basis

• The following tests were analysed on samples as received and the results subsequently corrected

to a dry weight basis TPH, BTEX, VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, phenols

• For all other tests the samples were dried at < 37°C prior to analysis

• Uncertainties of measurement for the determinands tested are available upon request

• Soil descriptions, including colour and texture, are beyond the scope of MCertS accreditation

• None of the test results included in this report have been recovery corrected

2183

Registered in England & Wales - Registration Number 6511736 - Registered Office: 11 Depot Road Newmarket Suffolk CB8 0AL

Test Report Cover Sheet250237

AMENDED LABORATORY TEST REPORTResults of analysis of 4 samples


Newstead Primary SchoolFAO


A Copestake

Lawrence House

Meadowbank Way

Eastwood Notts

NG16 3SB Report Date

18 February 2014

250237AJ76823 AJ76825 AJ76826 AJ76827

WS1 WS2 WS3 WS4

27/1/2014 27/1/2014 27/1/2014 27/1/2014

0.45m 0.20m 0.30m 0.40m

SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL

2030 Moisture % M 19.2 20.2 18.4 19.4Stones content (>50mm) % M <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

2040 Soil colour M brown brown brown brownSoil texture M clay clay clay clayOther material M stones stones stones stones

2010 pH M 8.1 8.1 7.4 7.92180 Sulfur (elemental) 7704349 mg kg-¹ M 23.0 12.0 46.0 9.42300 Cyanide (free) 57125 mg kg-¹ M <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50

Cyanide (total) 57125 mg kg-¹ M <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.502325 Sulfide (Easily Liberatable) 18496258 mg kg-¹ M 28 30 25 132175 Sulfur (total TRL report 447) % M 0.112625 Total Organic Carbon % M 192220 Chloride (extractable) 16887006 g l-¹ M <0.010

Nitrate (extractable) 14797558 g l-¹ N <0.0102120 Boron (hot water soluble) 7440428 mg kg-¹ M 0.8 1.4 1.2 1.3

Sulfate (2:1 water soluble) as SO4 14808798 g l-¹ M 1.1 1.8 1.6 0.662420 Magnesium (soluble) 7439954 g l-¹ N 0.052490 Chromium (hexavalent) 18540299 mg kg-¹ N < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.52425 Ammonium as NH4 (extractable) 7664417 mg kg-¹ M < 2.02430 Sulfate (total BS1377 HCl extract) 14808798 % M 0.05 0.14 0.06 0.062450 Arsenic 7440382 mg kg-¹ M 13 12 14 11

Cadmium 7440439 mg kg-¹ M <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10Chromium 7440473 mg kg-¹ M 7.5 10 7.7 10Copper 7440508 mg kg-¹ M 27 70 28 29

*UnitsiCAS NoiDeterminandiSOPi

Matrix

Depth

Sample No

Sample ID

Chemtest LIMS ID

Login Batch No

Sampling Date

All tests undertaken between 30/01/2014 and 18/02/2014

* Accreditation status

This report should be interpreted in conjunction with the notes on the accompanying cover page.

Column page 1

Report page 1 of 3






A Copestake

Lawrence House

Meadowbank Way

Eastwood Notts


18 February 2014

250237AJ76823 AJ76825 AJ76826 AJ76827

WS1 WS2 WS3 WS4

27/1/2014 27/1/2014 27/1/2014 27/1/2014

0.45m 0.20m 0.30m 0.40m

SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL

2450 Mercury 7439976 mg kg-¹ M 0.22 <0.10 0.27 0.27Nickel 7440020 mg kg-¹ M 14 33 13 9.0Lead 7439921 mg kg-¹ M 47 12 130 110Selenium 7782492 mg kg-¹ M <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20Zinc 7440666 mg kg-¹ M 47 19 89 160

2670 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg kg-¹ M 100 26 880 782675 TPH aliphatic >C5-C6 mg kg-¹ N < 0.1

TPH aliphatic >C6-C8 mg kg-¹ N < 0.1TPH aliphatic >C8-C10 mg kg-¹ N < 0.1TPH aliphatic >C10-C12 mg kg-¹ M < 1TPH aliphatic >C12-C16 mg kg-¹ M < 1TPH aliphatic >C16-C21 mg kg-¹ M < 1TPH aliphatic >C21-C35 mg kg-¹ M < 1TPH aliphatic >C35-C44 mg kg-¹ N < 1TPH aromatic >C5-C7 mg kg-¹ N < 0.1TPH aromatic >C7-C8 mg kg-¹ N < 0.1TPH aromatic >C8-C10 mg kg-¹ N < 0.1TPH aromatic >C10-C12 mg kg-¹ N < 1TPH aromatic >C12-C16 mg kg-¹ M 2.5TPH aromatic >C16-C21 mg kg-¹ M 18TPH aromatic >C21-C35 mg kg-¹ N 42TPH aromatic >C35-C44 mg kg-¹ N < 1Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg kg-¹ N 64

2700 Naphthalene 91203 mg kg-¹ M 0.78 2 2.3 0.46Acenaphthylene 208968 mg kg-¹ M 1.6 0.84 3.4 0.58




Column page 1

Report page 2 of 3






A Copestake

Lawrence House

Meadowbank Way

Eastwood Notts


18 February 2014

250237AJ76823 AJ76825 AJ76826 AJ76827

WS1 WS2 WS3 WS4

27/1/2014 27/1/2014 27/1/2014 27/1/2014

0.45m 0.20m 0.30m 0.40m

SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL

2700 Acenaphthene 83329 mg kg-¹ M 0.86 0.51 1.2 0.43Fluorene 86737 mg kg-¹ M 0.81 1.3 1.9 0.37Phenanthrene 85018 mg kg-¹ M 7.4 2.7 12 2.1Anthracene 120127 mg kg-¹ M 2.9 0.87 6.4 0.83Fluoranthene 206440 mg kg-¹ M 9.1 2.6 18 3.5Pyrene 129000 mg kg-¹ M 8.3 2.4 18 3.2Benzo[a]anthracene 56553 mg kg-¹ M 5.4 1.5 15 2.2Chrysene 218019 mg kg-¹ M 6 1.6 14 2.2Benzo[b]fluoranthene 205992 mg kg-¹ N 5.3 1.6 8.3 2.4Benzo[k]fluoranthene 207089 mg kg-¹ N 4.2 0.95 10 2.1Benzo[a]pyrene 50328 mg kg-¹ M 5.2 1.2 11 2.2Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene 53703 mg kg-¹ M 0.63 < 0.1 2.2 0.2Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 193395 mg kg-¹ M 2.9 < 0.1 6.1 1.3Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 191242 mg kg-¹ M 2.6 < 0.1 7.2 2.2Total (of 16) PAHs mg kg-¹ M 64 20 140 26

2701 PAH (total EPA 16) mg kg-¹ M 64 20 140 262920 Phenols (total) mg kg-¹ M <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3




Column page 1

Report page 3 of 3


Appendix VII



CLEA Current Works workbook

CLEA Software Version 1.06 Page 1 of 11

Report generated

Report title

C t d b


A hl C t k t HSP C lti

24-Feb-14

Created by

RESULTS

Ashley Copestake at HSP Consulting


CLEA Software Version 1.06 Report generated Page 2 of 1124-Feb-14

Assessment Criterion (mg kg-1) Ratio of ADE to HCV 50% rule?

oral inhalation combined oral inhalation combined Oral Inhal

1

Saturation Limit (mg kg-1)

12 Benz[a]anthracene 1.12E+01 6.07E+02 1.10E+01 0.98 0.02 1.00 8.56E+00 (sol) No No3 Chrysene 1.62E+01 9.00E+02 1.59E+01 0.98 0.02 1.00 2.20E+00 (vap) No No4 Benzo[b]fluoranthene 1.15E+01 6.78E+02 1.13E+01 0.98 0.02 1.00 6.07E+00 (sol) No No5 Benzo[k]fluoranthene 1.62E+01 9.69E+02 1.59E+01 0.98 0.02 1.00 3.43E+00 (sol) No No6 Benzo[a]pyrene 1.62E+00 9.61E+01 1.59E+00 0.98 0.02 1.00 4.55E+00 (vap) No No7 Dibenz[ah]anthracene 1.46E-01 8.82E+01 1.45E-01 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.96E-02 (vap) No No

I d [123 d] 6 95E 00 4 03E 02 6 83E 00 0 98 0 02 1 00 3 07E 01 ( ) N N8 Indeno[123-cd]pyrene 6.95E+00 4.03E+02 6.83E+00 0.98 0.02 1.00 3.07E-01 (vap) No No9

1011121314151617181920


CLEA Software Version 1.06 Report generated Page 3 of 1124-Feb-14

Assessment Criterion (mg kg-1) Ratio of ADE to HCV 50% rule?

oral inhalation combined oral inhalation combined Oral Inhal

21

Saturation Limit (mg kg-1)

21222324252627282930


CLEA Software Version 1.06 Report generated Page 4 of 11

Soil Distribution Media Concentrations

24-Feb-14

% % % % mg kg-1 mg m-3 mg kg-1 mg m-3 mg m-3 mg m-3 mg m-3 mg m-3 mg kg-1 FW mg kg-1 FW mg kg-1 FW mg kg-1 FW mg kg-1 FW mg kg-1 FW

1

Tube

r ve

geta

bles

Her

bace

ous

fruit

Gre

en

vege

tabl

es

Roo

t ve

geta

bles

Indo

or

Vapo

ur

Out

door

va

pour

at

0.8m

Out

door

va

pour

at

1.6m

Soil

gas

Out

door

dus

t at

0.8

m

Out

door

dus

t at

1.6

m

Soil

Indo

or D

ust

Sor

bed

Dis

solv

ed

Vap

our

Tota

l

Shru

b fru

it

Tree

frui

t

12 Benz[a]anthracene 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1.10E+01 1.54E-04 5.48E+00 4.66E-09 0.00E+00 4.65E-12 3.86E-08 0.00E+00 NA NA NA NA NA NA3 Chrysene 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1.59E+01 3.17E-05 7.94E+00 6.76E-09 0.00E+00 9.58E-13 5.13E-08 0.00E+00 NA NA NA NA NA NA4 Benzo[b]fluoranthene 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1.13E+01 7.62E-06 5.64E+00 4.80E-09 0.00E+00 2.30E-13 2.55E-08 0.00E+00 NA NA NA NA NA NA

5 Benzo[k]fluoranthene 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1.59E+01 6.45E-06 7.95E+00 6.77E-09 0.00E+00 1.95E-13 3.02E-08 0.00E+00 NA NA NA NA NA NA

6 Benzo[a]pyrene 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1.59E+00 7.49E-07 7.95E-01 6.77E-10 0.00E+00 2.26E-14 3.25E-09 0.00E+00 NA NA NA NA NA NA

7 Dibenz[ah]anthracene 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1.45E-01 1.45E-07 7.26E-02 6.18E-11 0.00E+00 4.39E-15 2.48E-10 0.00E+00 NA NA NA NA NA NA

8 Indeno[123-cd]pyrene 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 6.83E+00 5.55E-06 3.42E+00 2.91E-09 0.00E+00 1.68E-13 1.67E-08 0.00E+00 NA NA NA NA NA NA

91011121314151617181920



Soil Distribution Media Concentrations

24-Feb-14

% % % % mg kg-1 mg m-3 mg kg-1 mg m-3 mg m-3 mg m-3 mg m-3 mg m-3 mg kg-1 FW mg kg-1 FW mg kg-1 FW mg kg-1 FW mg kg-1 FW mg kg-1 FW

21

Sor

bed

Dis

solv

ed

Vap

our

Tota

l

Indo

or

Vapo

ur

Indo

or D

ust

Soil

gas

Out

door

dus

t at

0.8

m

Out

door

dus

t at

1.6

m

Soil

Out

door

va

pour

at

0.8m

Out

door

va

pour

at

1.6m

Gre

en

vege

tabl

es

Roo

t ve

geta

bles

Tube

r ve

geta

bles

Her

bace

ous

fruit

Shru

b fru

it

Tree

frui

t

21222324252627282930



Average Daily Exposure (mg kg-1 bw day-1) Distribution by Pathway (%)

24-Feb-14

1

Inha

latio

n of

vap

our

Back

grou

nd (o

ral)

Back

grou

nd (o

ral)

Back

grou

nd

(inha

latio

n)

Inha

latio

n of

vap

our

(indo

or)

Dire

ct s

oil i

nges

tion

Con

sum

ptio

n of

ho

meg

row

n pr

oduc

e an

d at

tach

ed s

oil

Der

mal

con

tact

with

so

il an

d du

st

Inha

latio

n of

dus

t

Con

sum

ptio

n of

ho

meg

row

n pr

oduc

e an

d at

tach

ed s

oil

Der

mal

con

tact

with

so

il an

d du

st

Inha

latio

n of

dus

t

Back

grou

nd

(inha

latio

n)

Dire

ct s

oil i

nges

tion

Inha

latio

n of

vap

our

(out

door

)

12 Benz[a]anthracene 8.12E-05 0.00E+00 5.43E-05 7.04E-09 1.62E-09 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 59.95 0.00 40.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003 Chrysene 1.18E-04 0.00E+00 7.87E-05 1.02E-08 2.15E-09 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 59.95 0.00 40.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004 Benzo[b]fluoranthene 8.37E-05 0.00E+00 5.59E-05 7.25E-09 1.07E-09 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 59.95 0.00 40.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5 Benzo[k]fluoranthene 1.18E-04 0.00E+00 7.88E-05 1.02E-08 1.26E-09 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 59.95 0.00 40.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

6 Benzo[a]pyrene 1.18E-05 0.00E+00 7.88E-06 1.02E-09 1.36E-10 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 59.95 0.00 40.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

7 Dibenz[ah]anthracene 1.08E-06 0.00E+00 7.20E-07 9.34E-11 1.04E-11 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 59.95 0.00 40.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

8 Indeno[123-cd]pyrene 5.07E-05 0.00E+00 3.39E-05 4.39E-09 6.98E-10 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 59.95 0.00 40.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

91011121314151617181920



Average Daily Exposure (mg kg-1 bw day-1) Distribution by Pathway (%)

24-Feb-14

21

Dire

ct s

oil i

nges

tion

Con

sum

ptio

n of

ho

meg

row

n pr

oduc

e an

d at

tach

ed s

oil

Der

mal

con

tact

with

so

il an

d du

st

Inha

latio

n of

dus

t

Inha

latio

n of

vap

our

Back

grou

nd (o

ral)

Back

grou

nd

(inha

latio

n)

Dire

ct s

oil i

nges

tion

Con

sum

ptio

n of

ho

meg

row

n pr

oduc

e

Der

mal

con

tact

with

so

il an

d du

st

Inha

latio

n of

dus

t

Inha

latio

n of

vap

our

(indo

or)

Back

grou

nd (o

ral)

Back

grou

nd

(inha

latio

n)

Inha

latio

n of

vap

our

(out

door

)

21222324252627282930



y vi

a so

il

ke

alue

y In

take

eria

Val

ue

24-Feb-14

s)effic

ient

n in

Air

(m2

y vi

a du

st

door

air

n in

Wat

er

actio

n

fact

or

(g

1

Rel

ativ

e bi

oava

ilabi

lity

inge

stio

n (u

nitle

ss)

Ora

l Mea

n D

aily

Inta

k e(μ

g da

y-1)

Ora

l Hea

lth C

riter

ia V

a(μ

g kg

-1 B

W d

ay-1

)

Inha

latio

n M

ean

Dai

ly

(μg

day-1

)

Inha

latio

n H

ealth

Crit

e(μ

g kg

-1 B

W d

ay-1

)

log

K oc (

cm3 g

-1)

log

K ow (d

imen

sion

less

Air-

wat

er p

artit

ion

coef

(Kaw

) (c

m3 c

m-3

)

Coe

ffici

ent o

f Diff

usio

ns-1

)

Rel

ativ

e bi

oava

ilabi

lity

inha

latio

n (u

nitle

ss)

Sub-

surfa

ce s

oil t

o in

dco

rrec

tion

fact

or

(dim

ensi

onle

ss)

Coe

ffici

ent o

f Diff

usio

n(m

2 s-1

)

Der

mal

Abs

orpt

ion

Fra

(dim

ensi

onle

ss)

Soil-

to-d

ust t

rans

port

fg-1

DW

)

12 Benz[a]anthracene ID 0.138 ID 0.00048 NR NR 3.16E-05 4.60E-06 3.80E-10 4.89 5.91 0.13 0.5 1 1 13 Chrysene ID 0.2 ID 0.0007 NR NR 3.18E-06 4.57E-06 3.77E-10 4.74 5.73 0.13 0.5 1 1 14 Benzo[b]fluoranthene ID 0.142 ID 0.0005 NR NR 2.05E-06 4.36E-06 3.62E-10 5.02 6.08 0.13 0.5 1 1 1

5 Benzo[k]fluoranthene ID 0.2 ID 0.0007 NR NR 1.74E-06 4.36E-06 3.62E-10 5.17 6.26 0.13 0.5 1 1 1

6 Benzo[a]pyrene ID 0.02 ID 0.00007 NR NR 1.76E-06 4.38E-06 3.67E-10 5.11 6.18 0.13 0.5 1 1 1

7 Dibenz[ah]anthracene ID 0.0018 ID 0.000063 NR NR 5.40E-06 4.08E-06 3.40E-10 5.27 6.38 0.13 0.5 1 1 1

8 Indeno[123-cd]pyrene ID 0.086 ID 0.0003 0 0 2.05E-06 4.17E-06 3.51E-10 4.94 5.97 0.13 0.5 1 1 1

91011121314151617181920



y vi

a so

il

y vi

a du

st

n in

Wat

er

s) actio

n

24-Feb-14

fact

or

(g

ke

y In

take

effic

ient

eria

Val

ue

n in

Air

(m2

alue

door

air

21

Rel

ativ

e bi

oava

ilabi

lity

inge

stio

n (u

nitle

ss)

Rel

ativ

e bi

oava

ilabi

lity

inha

latio

n (u

nitle

ss)

Coe

ffici

ent o

f Diff

usio

n(m

2 s-1

)

log

K oc (

cm3 g

-1)

log

K ow (d

imen

sion

less

Der

mal

Abs

orpt

ion

Fra

(dim

ensi

onle

ss)

Soil-

to-d

ust t

rans

port

fg-1

DW

)

Ora

l Mea

n D

aily

Inta

ke(μ

g da

y-1)

Inha

latio

n M

ean

Dai

ly

(μg

day-1

)

Air-

wat

er p

artit

ion

coef

(Kaw

) (c

m3 c

m-3

)

Inha

latio

n H

ealth

Crit

e(μ

g kg

-1 B

W d

ay-1

)

Coe

ffici

ent o

f Diff

usio

ns-1

)

Ora

l Hea

lth C

riter

ia V

a(μ

g kg

-1 B

W d

ay-1

)

Sub-

surfa

ce s

oil t

o in

dco

rrec

tion

fact

or

(dim

ensi

onle

ss)

21222324252627282930



L-1)

atio

n fa

ctor

(m

g g-1

s ov

er m

g

atio

n fa

ctor

FW b

asis

atio

n fa

ctor

(m

g g-1

s ov

er m

g

atio

n fa

ctor

(

mg

g-1

s ov

er m

g

atio

n fa

ctor

(m

g g-1

s ov

er m

g

atio

n fa

ctor

(m

g g-1

s ov

er m

g

24-Feb-14

coef

ficie

nt

1

Wat

er s

olub

ility

(mg

L-

Soil-

to-p

lant

con

cent

rafo

r her

bace

ous

fruit

pl

ant D

W o

r FW

bas

is

g-1 D

W s

oil)

Soil-

to-p

lant

con

cent

rafo

r shr

ub fr

uit

(mg

g-1 p

lant

DW

or F

Wov

er m

g g-1

DW

soi

l)

Soil-

to-p

lant

con

cent

rafo

r tre

e fru

it

pl

ant D

W o

r FW

bas

is

g-1 D

W s

oil)

Soil-

to-p

lant

con

cent

rafo

r tub

er v

eget

able

s

plan

t DW

or F

W b

asis

g-1

DW

soi

l)

Soil-

to-p

lant

con

cent

r afo

r roo

t veg

etab

les

(

plan

t DW

or F

W b

asis

g-1

DW

soi

l)

Soil-

to-p

lant

con

cent

r afo

r gre

en v

eget

able

s (

plan

t DW

or F

W b

asis

g-1

DW

soi

l)

Soil-

to-w

ater

par

titio

n c

(cm

3 g-1

)

Vapo

ur p

ress

ure

(Pa)

12 Benz[a]anthracene 2.25E+03 1.24E-06 3.80E-03 model model model model model model3 Chrysene 1.59E+03 4.52E-08 2.00E-03 model model model model model model4 Benzo[b]fluoranthene 3.04E+03 6.34E-08 2.00E-03 model model model model model model

5 Benzo[k]fluoranthene 4.29E+03 1.64E-08 8.00E-04 model model model model model model

6 Benzo[a]pyrene 3.74E+03 2.00E-08 3.80E-03 model model model model model model

7 Dibenz[ah]anthracene 5.40E+03 1.66E-10 6.00E-04 model model model model model model

8 Indeno[123-cd]pyrene 2.53E+03 2.12E-09 2.00E-04 model model model model model model

91011121314151617181920



atio

n fa

ctor

(m

g g-1

s ov

er m

g

atio

n fa

ctor

FW

bas

is

atio

n fa

ctor

(m

g g-1

s ov

er m

g

24-Feb-14

atio

n fa

ctor

(m

g g-1

s ov

er m

g

L-1)

atio

n fa

ctor

(m

g g-1

s ov

er m

g

coef

ficie

nt

atio

n fa

ctor

(

mg

g-1

s ov

er m

g

21

Soil-

to-p

lant

con

cent

rafo

r her

bace

ous

fruit

pl

ant D

W o

r FW

bas

is

g-1 D

W s

oil)

Soil-

to-p

lant

con

cent

rafo

r shr

ub fr

uit

(mg

g-1 p

lant

DW

or F

Wov

er m

g g-1

DW

soi

l)

Soil-

to-p

lant

con

cent

rafo

r tre

e fru

it

pl

ant D

W o

r FW

bas

is

g-1 D

W s

oil)

Soil-

to-p

lant

con

cent

r afo

r roo

t veg

etab

les

(

plan

t DW

or F

W b

asis

g-1

DW

soi

l)

Vapo

ur p

ress

ure

(Pa)

Wat

er s

olub

ility

(mg

L-

Soil-

to-p

lant

con

cent

rafo

r gre

en v

eget

able

s (

plan

t DW

or F

W b

asis

g-1

DW

soi

l)

Soil-

to-w

ater

par

titio

n c

(cm

3 g-1

)

Soil-

to-p

lant

con

cent

r afo

r tub

er v

eget

able

s

plan

t DW

or F

W b

asis

g-1

DW

soi

l)

21222324252627282930


CLEA Software Version 1.06 Page 1 of 5

Report generated

Report title Newstead Primary School

24/02/2014

Created by

BASIC SETTINGS

Ashley Copestake at HSP Consulting

Land Use Residential without homegrown produce

Building School Receptor Female (res) Start age class 1 End age class 6 Exposure Duration 6 yearsSoil Sand

Exposure Pathways Direct soil and dust ingestion Dermal contact with indoor dust Inhalation of indoor dustConsumption of homegrown produce Dermal contact with soil Inhalation of soil dustSoil attached to homegrown produce Inhalation of indoor vapour

Inhalation of outdoor vapour



Land Use

24-Feb-14

Residential without homegrown produce

Exposure Frequencies (days yr-1) Occupation Periods (hr day-1)

soil

inge

stio

n ra

te

1 )ion

of d

ust

pour

, ind

oor

ion

of d

ust

pour

, out

door

Soil to skin adherence factors (mg cm2)

orssoil

inge

stio

n

mpt

ion

of

row

n pr

oduc

e

l con

tact

with

du

st

l con

tact

with

ors

Age Class

1 180 0 180 180 365 365 23.0 1.0 0.06 1.00 0.102 365 0 365 365 365 365 23.0 1.0 0.06 1.00 0.103 365 0 365 365 365 365 23.0 1.0 0.06 1.00 0.104 365 0 365 365 365 365 23.0 1.0 0.06 1.00 0.10

Dire

ct s

(g d

ay-1

Inha

latio

and

vap

Inha

latio

and

vap

Indo

or

Out

doo

Indo

ors

Dire

ct s

Con

sum

hom

egr

Der

mal

in

door

d

Der

mal

so

il

Out

doo

4 365 0 365 365 365 365 23.0 1.0 0.06 1.00 0.105 365 0 365 365 365 365 19.0 1.0 0.06 1.00 0.106 365 0 365 365 365 365 19.0 1.0 0.06 1.00 0.107 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.008 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 0010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0011 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0012 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0014 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0015 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0016 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 0016 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0017 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00



Receptor Female (res)

24-Feb-14

Max exposed skin factor Consumption rates (g FW kg-1 BW day-1)

fruit

uit

eget

able

s

wei

ght (

kg)

vege

tabl

es

ceou

s fru

it

ion

rate

y-1

)

vege

tabl

es

r (m

2 m-2

)

eigh

t (m

)

or (m

2 m-2

)

skin

are

a

Age Class

1 5.60 0.7 8.5 0.32 0.26 3.43E-01 7.12 10.69 16.03 1.83 2.23 3.822 9.80 0.8 13.3 0.33 0.26 4.84E-01 6.85 3.30 5.46 3.96 0.54 11.963 12.70 0.9 12.7 0.32 0.25 5.82E-01 6.85 3.30 5.46 3.96 0.54 11.964 15.10 0.9 12.2 0.35 0.28 6.36E-01 6.85 3.30 5.46 3.96 0.54 11.96

Shr

ub fr

Tree

fru

Roo

t ve

Body

we

Tube

r v

Her

bace

Inha

latio

(m3 d

ay

Gre

en v

Indo

or

Body

he

Out

doo

Tota

l s(m

2 )

4 15.10 0.9 12.2 0.35 0.28 6.36E 01 6.85 3.30 5.46 3.96 0.54 11.965 16.90 1.0 12.2 0.35 0.28 7.04E-01 3.74 1.77 3.38 1.85 0.16 4.266 19.70 1.1 12.2 0.33 0.26 7.94E-01 3.74 1.77 3.38 1.85 0.16 4.267 22.10 1.2 12.4 0.22 0.15 8.73E-01 3.74 1.77 3.38 1.85 0.16 4.268 25.30 1.2 12.4 0.22 0.15 9.36E-01 3.74 1.77 3.38 1.85 0.16 4.269 27.50 1.3 12.4 0.22 0.15 1.01E+00 3.74 1.77 3.38 1.85 0.16 4.26

10 31 40 1 3 12 4 0 22 0 15 1 08E+00 3 74 1 77 3 38 1 85 0 16 4 2610 31.40 1.3 12.4 0.22 0.15 1.08E+00 3.74 1.77 3.38 1.85 0.16 4.2611 35.70 1.4 12.4 0.22 0.14 1.19E+00 3.74 1.77 3.38 1.85 0.16 4.2612 41.30 1.4 13.4 0.22 0.14 1.29E+00 3.74 1.77 3.38 1.85 0.16 4.2613 47.20 1.5 13.4 0.22 0.14 1.42E+00 3.74 1.77 3.38 1.85 0.16 4.2614 51.20 1.6 13.4 0.22 0.14 1.52E+00 3.74 1.77 3.38 1.85 0.16 4.2615 56.70 1.6 13.4 0.21 0.14 1.60E+00 3.74 1.77 3.38 1.85 0.16 4.2616 59 00 1 6 13 4 0 21 0 14 1 63E 00 3 74 1 77 3 38 1 85 0 16 4 2616 59.00 1.6 13.4 0.21 0.14 1.63E+00 3.74 1.77 3.38 1.85 0.16 4.2617 70.00 1.6 14.8 0.33 0.27 1.78E+00 2.94 1.40 1.79 1.61 0.22 2.9718 70.90 1.6 12.0 0.33 0.27 1.80E+00 2.94 1.40 1.79 1.61 0.22 2.97



Building School Soil Sand

24-Feb-14

6.81E+04 5.40E-015.00E-01 3.00E-01

3.50E+00 2.40E-01Living space height (above ground, m)

Building footprint (m2)Living space air exchange rate (hr-1)

Porosity, Total (cm3 cm-3)Porosity, Air-Filled (cm3 cm-3)

Porosity, Water-Filled (cm3 cm-3)

0.00E+00 7.00E-02

4.40E+00 7.36E-034.50E+02 3.51E-01

1.18E+00

Pressure difference (soil to enclosed space, Pa)

3.50E+03Floor crack area (cm2)

Foundation thickness (m)

Living space height (below ground, m) Residual soil water content (cm3 cm-3)

Saturated hydraulic conductivity (cm s-1)van Genuchten shape parameter m (dimensionless)

Bulk density (g cm-3)

5.00E-01 Threshold value of wind speed at 10m (m s-1) 7.20E+00Empirical function (Fx) for dust model (dimensionless) 1.22E+00

2.83E+02

7.50E+005 00E+00

Dust loading factor (μg m-3)

Ambient soil temperature (K)

Soil pHSoil Organic Matter content (%) 5.00E+00

2.90E-02

3.62E-019.83E-087.68E-017 54E 08

Effective total fluid saturation (unitless)

Relative soil air permeability (unitless)Intrinsic soil permeability (cm2)

Eff ti i bilit ( 2)

Soil Organic Matter content (%)

Fraction of organic carbon (g g-1)

7.54E-08Effective air permeability (cm2)



Soil - Vapour Model Air Dispersion Model

24-Feb-14

0 Mean annual windspeed at 10m (m s-1) 5.00Depth to top of source (beneath building) (cm) 45050 2400.00

Default soil gas ingress rate? Yes 0.00

Depth to top of source (no building) (cm)

Air dispersion factor at height of 1.6m *

Air dispersion factor at height of 0.8m *

1.00E+00 Fraction of site cover (m2 m-2) 0.75

3.31E+07 * Air dispersion factor in g m-2 s-1 per kg m-3

Averaging time surface emissions (yr) 6Finite vapour source model? NoThickness of contaminated layer (cm) 200

Soil gas ingress rate (cm3 s-1)

Building ventilation rate (cm3 s-1)

Thickness of contaminated layer (cm) 200

Soil - Plant ModelAverage High

Dry weight conversion factor

Preparation correction factor

Soil loading factor

Homegrown fraction

g DW g-1 FW dimensionless g g-1 DW dimensionless0.096 0.05 0.33 1.00E-03 2.00E-010.103 0.06 0.40 1.00E-03 1.00E+000.210 0.02 0.13 1.00E-03 1.00E+000.058 0.06 0.40 1.00E-03 6.00E-010 166 0 09 0 60 1 00E 03 6 00E 01Sh b f it

Green vegetablesRoot vegetablesTuber vegetablesHerbaceous fruit

0.166 0.09 0.60 1.00E-03 6.00E-010.157 0.04 0.27 1.00E-03 6.00E-01

Gardener type None

Tree fruitShrub fruit

environmental & geotechnical engineering

Documents